Exercise 3 solution

Other pairs of thinkers work equally well; this is one model answer. The football club and court judgements below are my own reasoning, not claims from the pages (check).

Durkheim: he would point to "a set of shared social norms". The town stays orderly because most people accept shared expectations about how to behave at school, in hospital and at matches, and they correct each other informally.

Marx: he would point to the economic base, "the relations of production". On this view the order depends on who owns what and who works for whom, and the school, hospital and court are shaped by that underlying arrangement.

Best fit for the football club: Durkheim's shared norms. A club runs mostly on custom, fair play and the wish of members to belong, with few formal penalties.

Best fit for the court: this depends on the source. Hechter and Horne's contrast, as the Social order page reports it, puts order from a coercive state beside order from internalised values; a court is the clearest case of the state's enforcing power. Parsons's "social institutions regulating the pattern of action-orientation" also fits, since the court is a formal institution.

Evidence that would settle it: look at what happens when a rule is broken. Do people comply because they fear sanctions, or because they have internalised the rule? Compare behaviour where nobody is watching. The pages offer no such data, so the question stays open.