Presentation

W&M Chapter 8: Labeling Theory

1. Introduction a. Labeling theorists argue other theories place to much reliance on the individual

deviant and have neglected the ways that people react to deviance – this leads to the societal reaction school.

b. By de-emphasizing the criminal, labeling is similar to the old Classical School in focusing on official agencies and the making/application of the law.

i. This spurs interest in investigating the criminal justice process. ii. Labeling sensitizes criminology to the relativity of its subject matter and

the middle-class values it has used to study criminals. c. Labeling suggested criminologists had overemphasized the original deviant act as

well as the character of the deviant. i. This is supported by the fact that definitions of crime change from time

to time and from place to place. Thus, labeling theorists question the pervasive notion that because crime is bad, those who commit crime must also be bad and a criminal act is naturally bad.

d. Some criminologists have debated the content of labeling theory and insist it is not an actual theory.

e. Labeling has one or two parts based on perspective/scholar i. Societal reaction school – argues that labeling is about the way in which

people react to and label others. Thus, the focus I son the reactors and not the person labeled.

1. More historically correct camp ii. The effect of the labeled on the person labeled is also part of the theory –

perspective asks not only about the reactors but also about how the label affects the individual.

2. The heritage of the theory a. The social heritage

i. End of 1950s – society is becoming more conscious of inequality/segregation and civil rights and there is a focus on the underprivileged.

ii. Kennedy and Johnson administrations and the idea of the Great Society in which everyone will be equal.

iii. Labeling and labeling theory answers the question of why some people/statuses are more frequently negatively stereotyped.

b. The intellectual heritage i. The Chicago School

ii. Herbert and Mead iii. Becker iv. Lilly, Cullen, Ball, and Merton

1. The self-fulfilling prophecy – believed that many delinquent who may have started out as simply troubled youth felt that they may as well commit the offended that they were going to be accused

of anyways. Living up to one’s reputation becomes part of the adaptation of being labeled.

a. False labels can become the truth for those who are ready to believe it.

b. Deviance is dependent on who views it. v. Advent of self-report data/studies

1. Findings show those who are “officially” deviant may also just be those who have come to the attention of authorities. This implied reaction by authorities rather than actual deviance might also explain the disproportionate number of lower class-youth in various delinquency statistics.

3. The theoretical perspective a. Early labeling theory literature

i. Frank Tannenbaum’s Crim and the Community 1. The dramatization of evil – suggests that deviant behavior was not

a product of the deviant’s lack of adjustment to society as it was the fact he or she had adjusted to a special group. Thus, criminal behavior is a product of the conflict between a group and the community at large.

2. Labeling is the process of defining, identifying and segregating someone and then making them conscious and self-conscious o their faults and shortcomings.

b. Definition of crime i. Unlike other theories of crime, labeling understands the relativity of

deviance – deviance can often be in the eye of the beholder because members of various groups have different conceptions of what is right and proper in certain situations.

ii. There must be a reaction to an act. 1. Deviance must be discovered by some group that does not share

a belief in the appropriateness of the behavior and it must subsequently be called deviance. To the extend law reflects the values of that group, the behavior is labeled crime and the perpetrator a criminal.

a. Emphasizes that those who engage in criminal behavior are not synonymous with those who are labeled criminal. The question becomes “How do people get reacted to as being deviant?”

c. Studying the reactors i. Becker’s interest in organizations and careers was in large part

responsible for his defining deviance from outside the actor (those who reacted to it). Becker believed it was necessary to study not just the criminal but the audience and the criminal justice system.

d. Labeling as a result of societal reaction

i. Labeling approach to deviance has two parts: explaining how and why certain individuals get labeled (i.e., what causes the label – this becomes a dependent variable) and the effect to of the label on subsequent deviant behavior.

ii. Creation of deviance (Becker) 1. Rules, circumstances, characteristics of the individual and

reactions to those in the audience serve to separate those acts that are deviant from those that are not, even though they may appear to be identical behaviors.

a. It is not even necessary the behavior exists, what is important is the reactors believe in its existence. Thus, it is the reaction to behavior that creates deviance. The problem is to explain how deviants (outsiders) are chosen and labeled.

2. Typology of deviant behavior – considers whether a particular behavior was conforming or deviant and whether the reactors perceived the behavior as conforming or deviant.

a. Falsely accused – did not exist or were actually conforming but the audience reacted as if they were deviant

b. Pure deviant – perception matched the reality of the act c. Conforming - perception matched the reality of the act d. Secret deviant – acts are those in which deviance had

indeed occurred but the audience ignored the acts or had not reacted as if they were deviant. These are quite common.

e. This approach to deviance meant that several facts about criminals needed explaining in a completely new way.

i. For example, arrest rates are not equally distributed.

1. Those from the societal reaction school wanted to understand why officials reacted more to some people than others.

2. Likelihood of reaction is greater if an individual were less socially powerful, a member with different group values than the dominant group, or are relatively isolated. Labeling theorists set about the process of determining how and why these types of people came to the attention of others.

e. Labeling as a cause of deviance i. Labeling advocates were also concerned with the effect of labels on the

person who is labeled. When looked at in this way, labeling becomes an

independent variable – the labeling itself creates (or causes) the deviant behavior.

1. This happens in two ways a. The label may catch the attention of the labeling audience,

causing the audience to watch and continue the labeling of the individual.

b. The label may be internalized by the individual and lead to an acceptance of a deviant self-concept.

c. Both of these may amplify the deviance and can create a career deviant.

ii. A label can also create a subsequent reaction. 1. Individuals who have been labeled become more visible in the

sense that people are more aware of them. This awareness causes them to be watched more closely and, thus, a second and third discovery of deviant behavior is even more likely than the first time.

2. It is difficult for those once labeled, such as probationers, parolees, or ex-offenders, to escape the attention of this audience, and a subsequent behavior is likely to be identified and relabeled.

iii. When the original label is more likely to be distributed among those with lower-class characteristics, this attention serves to reinforce the image of those individuals as deviants. People who are identified as “deviants” then have fewer chances to make good in the conventional world.

1. Conventional avenues to success are often cut off because of a deviant label and illegal means may become the only way left open. Thus, labeling advocates argue the lower class bears the brunt of the labeling process and is kept deviant through relabeling.

iv. Courtesy stigma (Goffman) 1. Theorists concerned with the way deviant labels were applied to

youth who associated with delinquent peers even if they had not themselves committed any offenses.

2. Goffman says that youth are cautioned to avoid others who were viewed as delinquent, even if they are not engaged in delinquency, so that they can avoid a delinquent reputation.

v. Labeling can have some positive effects 1. Positive labels can denote status and people strive to achieve

certain labels. f. Lemert’s secondary deviance

i. The second form of labeling effect suggest that, in addition to audience reaction, there is a possibility an individual will react to the societally imposed label.

ii. According to Lemert

1. In any population there is differentiation – there are people who deviate from the normal behavior and characteristics of the general society (this can be obvious or hidden). And, it is the societal or audience reaction to those deviants in some circumstances, while not in others that determines whether the internalization and adoption of that deviant role later occurs (this is secondary deviance).

2. The initial act (primary deviance) may not matter to an individual. That is, it may not affect their self-image. However, if their self- image is not strong, they may accept the label and change their self-image accordingly. The more often a person is labeled, the more likely it is that this change will take place.

iii. Feedback is an important part of the process by which a new self-concept is internalized.

1. Secondary deviance is gained through a trading back and forth until the labeled person finally accept the label as a real identity. This often results in the person joining a deviant subculture with further deviance being the product of the subcultural lifestyle.

a. Future forms of deviant behavior are a product of the new role itself. Deviance in its secondary form is quite literally created by the labeling process.

2. Some criminologists have suggested the best approach to reducing juvenile delinquency, and subsequent criminal behavior, is to do nothing when delinquent acts are discovered.

a. Less drastic reactions might help lessen the secondary effects on someone who is emotionally traumatized and get them the help that they need in a less stigmatizing fashion.

g. Master Status and retrospective interpretation i. Master status

1. Hughes and Becker 2. The idea that there are traits that are central to people’s identities

that blind us to other characteristics. a. The traits that are most important are a master status

(gender, occupation, age) b. Traits that are important but secondary are auxiliary

statuses 3. Where deviance is concerned criminal is a master status – this

makes it difficult for a person labeled as a criminal to drop the label, even if they have reformed/changed.

ii. Retrospective interpretation 1. Helps us understand how identities can be reconstructed to fit a

new label.

2. Past events and behavior can be reinterpreted to fit new identities – we start to reexamine these events and make sense of them in light of new information.

3. Applies not only to people around the labeled person, but also to an official agency’s interpretation of the person’s records.

4. Classification of the theory a. Processual theory – concerned with the way that labeling takes place

i. Some structure in the types of people (underclass) more likely to be labeled.

b. Classical – emphasizes crime, law, and criminal processing rather than the behavior itself. Labeling is more interested in rules and reactions.

c. Positivist/individualistic – labeling process can create/cause subsequent deviant behavior.

d. Conflict – labeling is similar to many conflict assumptions. Does not treat crime as universal or explain how reactions are distributed in society.

e. Microtheory – focuses on the effects of societal reaction to the individual’s behavior.