Labelling Theory

Labelling theorists argue no act is inherently
criminal or deviant in itself, in all situations
and all times. instead, it only comes to be so
when others label it as such. It is that nature
of society’s reaction to the act which makes
it deviant.
For Becker, a deviant is someone to whom the
label has been successfully applied.

To answer this, sociologists are interested in
the role of what Becker calls, moral
entrepreneurs. These are people who lead a
moral ‘crusade’ to change the law in the
belief it will benefit those to whom it is
applied. But, Becker argue this new law has
2 effects...
 The creation of a new group of ‘outsiders’
 The creation/expansion of a social control
agency to enforce the rule and impose labels
on offenders

For example, Platt argues the idea of ‘juvenile
delinquency’ is a result of a campaign by
upper-class Victorian moral entrepreneurs to
protect young people at risk. The ‘juveniles’
has a separate court so the state could
extend it’s power into ‘status offences’ (i.e
truancy)

Becker notes social control agencies may
campaign for a change in law to increase
their power. For example, the passing of the
Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 was to outlaw its
use. He argues this law was actually to
extend the Bureau’s sphere of influence.
Thus, it is the efforts of the powerful
individuals and groups to redefine behaviour
as acceptable that leads to new laws being
created.

Whether a person is arrested, charged or
convicted depends on factors...
 Their interactions with agencies of social
control
 Appearance, background, biography
 The situation and circumstances of the
offence
Piliavin and Briar found police decide to
arrest youths based on judgements of
physical cues. Decisions were also influenced
by class, gender, ethnicity, time and place.

Cicourel believes officers have typifications (their
commonsense stereotypes of what the typical
delinquent is like). This resulted in law
enforcement showing a class bias, so the police
patrol working class areas more intensively,
resulting in more arrests and so confirming their
typifications. Other social control agencies also
reinforce the bias. For example, probation
officers held the ‘commonsense theory’ that
juvenile delinquents came from broken homes,
poverty and lax parenting. They assume they
would offend in the future and so supported
non-custodian sentences for them.

Cicourel thinks justice is negotiable. He notes
the middle class are less likely to be charges
due to their background not fitting that of a
‘typical delinquent’ and that parents could
negotiate and be apologetic. This meant the
suspect could be ‘counselled, warned and
released’

Cicourel used official crime statistics within
his study. He argues statistics don’t give a
valid picture and so can’t be used as a
resource. Instead, they need to be treated as
a topic and we should investigate how the
statistics were created.
(this is a good point to make in any essay when statistics are
a form of evidence or even in essays regarding research
methods)

Lemert distinguishes between primary and
secondary deviance.
 Primary deviance
deviant acts that aren’t publically labelled.
It is pointless to seek a cause as it is so
widespread and is usually uncaught. It is easy
to rationalise these acts as ‘a moment of
madness’ for example as they aren’t part of
an organised deviant way of life. They have
little significance for self status or concept
and so actors don’t generally seem
themselves as deviant.

 Secondary deviance
deviant acts which are the result of labelling.
This means an actor may now only be seen in
terms of the label by society which comes to
be their master status. This provokes a crisis
for an actors self-concept and one way to
resolve this is to accept the label which
could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Acting
out from the label is what Lemert refers to
as secondary deviance.

Young conducted a study of ‘Hippy’ marijuana
users in Notting Hill. Initially, their use of
drugs were peripheral (primary deviance).
However, labelling and the persecution by
the control culture led the hippies to see
themselves as outsiders. They retreated to
becoming a closed group and started using
drugs as a central activity (secondary
deviance)

Lemert and Young’s work illustrates that it is
the hostile social reaction that creates
serious deviance. Therefore, the social
control process produces the opposite to law
abiding behaviour.
However, Downes and Rock note we can’t
predict whether someone who has been
labelled will follow a deviant career.

The deviance amplification spiral is a process
in which the attempt to control deviance
leads to an increased level of it. This leads to
more control and so yet more deviance.
A good example of this is Cohen’s study: “Folk
Devils and Moral Panics” (more of this to be found in
the media powerpoint – to be uploaded soon!)

Recent studies have shown how increases in the
attempt to punish and control young are having
the opposite effect. Triplett notes an increasing
tendency to see young offenders as evil and to
be less tolerant of minor deviance. The criminal
justice system has relabelled status offenders
such as truancy as serious and so now there are
harsher sentences. So, as Lemert predicted, this
has led to an increase in deviance. These
findings prove labelling has important policy
implications. Logically, we should make and
enforce less rules to be broken.

Braithwaite distinguishes between 2 types of shaming...
 Disintegrative: the crime and the criminals are labelled as
bad and so the offender is excluded from society.
 Reintegrative: this shaming just labels the act and not the
actor.
Reintegrative shaming avoids stigmatising the offender, but
makes them aware of their actions and the impact upon
others. It also encourages society to forgive them and
accept the offender back into society. This avoids pushing
the actor into secondary deviance. He points out that in
societies where reintegrative shaming is used, crime rates
are lower.

 Too deterministic
 Ignores the real victims of crime
 Ignores people could actively choose to deviate
 Why do people commit primary deviance before they are
labelled?
 It implies that without labelling, deviance wouldn’t exist
 Implies deviants are unaware that they are deviant until
they have been labelled
 It recognises the role of power, but ignores the source of it
by focusing on ‘middle range officials’ (it ignores who
makes the rules)
 Ignores the origin of labels and why they are applied to
certain groups

Labelling Theory

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Labelling Theory (20)

More from Beth Lee (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Labelling Theory