Hierarchical control organises behaviour into layers: high-level goals constrain mid-level plans, which constrain low-level actions. Abstract rules slot into this hierarchy as high-level constraints that bias which lower-level routines are selected. You don't consciously think "be quiet in the library" every time you speak; the rule operates as a loaded constraint that suppresses loud-voice routines and promotes quiet ones.

What makes this relevant to enforcement is that the constraint doesn't need to be active in working memory to do its work. Once a rule has been practised enough to become a default high-level goal in that context, it runs automatically. It biases action selection from above, exactly like any other goal, and the lower levels comply without knowing they're following a rule.

Key takeaway: norms operate as abstract goal constraints in the hierarchy---once internalised, they bias behaviour without requiring conscious compliance.

Social mapping is how the brain models the social environment: who is present, what they expect, what happens to people who deviate, who has status, and what the group treats as normal. This map runs continuously and updates from observation---you don't need to be told the rules explicitly if you can watch what happens to people who break them.

The enforcement comes from the monitoring itself. In tight-knit groups, social mapping is high-resolution: everyone knows what everyone else is doing, deviation is spotted instantly, and the social cost is calculated before you've even finished the action. This is why small, dense groups enforce norms so effectively---the monitoring infrastructure is so thorough that compliance becomes the only comfortable option. But the same mechanism enforces whatever norms the group actually practises, not necessarily the ones it espouses.

Key takeaway: social mapping provides the surveillance arm of enforcement---constant, automatic monitoring that makes deviation costly and compliance invisible.

Predictive processing treats the brain as a prediction machine that minimises surprise. Norms, from this angle, are just very confident predictions about what should happen in a given context. Walk into a church and the system predicts silence, stillness, deference. Walk into a pub and it predicts noise, movement, informality. These predictions are built from every previous visit and every observation of others in the same context.

When you violate a norm, what you're actually doing is generating a prediction error---in yourself and in everyone watching. That error spikes attention and generates affect. It feels wrong, not because you've reasoned that it's wrong but because the prediction was confident and reality just contradicted it. The discomfort of norm violation is, at bottom, the discomfort of surprise in a system that expected compliance.

Key takeaway: norms are encoded as predictions, and violating them generates the same prediction-error signal as any other surprise---complete with the affective charge that makes you want to correct course.

Reward circuitry completes the loop. Social approval activates the same dopaminergic pathways as other rewards; social disapproval activates overlapping threat circuitry. Conforming to group norms produces reward-like signals in the striatum, while deviation produces error signals in the anterior cingulate cortex. You don't need an explicit punishment to feel the cost of breaking a norm---the reward system supplies it automatically, through the absence of the expected social reward or the presence of the expected social discomfort.

This is subtle but powerful. Most norm-following doesn't involve dramatic rewards or punishments. It involves micro-adjustments: a slight feeling of ease when you're doing what everyone else is doing, a slight feeling of friction when you're not. These signals are small individually, but they're continuous and cumulative, and they bias the action-selection competition in favour of compliance thousands of times a day.

Key takeaway: the reward system makes norm-following feel subtly right and norm-violation feel subtly wrong, providing the motivational arm of enforcement alongside social mapping's surveillance arm.

Contextual cues determine which norms are active right now. You don't carry every social rule simultaneously---the context retrieves the relevant ones. Walk through the school gates and the 'school norms' load. Enter the barracks and the 'military norms' load. Go home and a different set activates entirely. This is why the same person can be obedient at work and rebellious at home---different contexts retrieve different normative constraints, and enforcement infrastructure only operates on whatever's currently loaded.

This also explains why norm violations cluster in transitions---new job, new country, new institution. The old norms are loaded by old cues, and the new context doesn't yet have strong enough cues to load the new ones reliably. You haven't become a rule-breaker; you've moved to a context where the retrieval infrastructure hasn't been built yet.

Key takeaway: enforcement is context-specific---norms activate through environmental cues, which means enforcement infrastructure must be built separately for each context where you want it to operate.

Underpinning all of this is the basic principle that well-trained neural pathways fire first. Every time you comply with a norm and the system registers the subtle reward of smooth social interaction, the compliance pathway gets a little stronger. Over thousands of repetitions, compliance becomes the default---the pathway is so well-worn that the alternative barely gets a look in. This is why long-established norms feel effortless and new norms feel like work: the old ones have the weight of repetition behind them.

Key takeaway: enforcement infrastructure is built through repetition---each compliant action strengthens the pathways that make future compliance the path of least resistance.