Evaluate the usefulness of labelling theory to our understanding of crime and deviance | Lecture notes Criminology

Evaluate the usefulness of labelling theory to our understanding of crime and

deviance (40 marks)

Synopticity – Crime & Deviance and Theory

Labelling theorists such as Becker and Lemert argue that because of the diversity of

different values in society, there can never be a universally agreed definition of what

constitutes ‘normal’ or ‘deviant behaviour’. What is deviant for one person may not

be deviant for another. Labelling theorists argue that social reactions means labels are

attached to certain people. For example, studies of the media by Cohen, Young etc.

indicate that media social reaction may result in groups such as gays being labelled

folk devils (such as aids carriers etc.). Fundamental to labelling’s traditional belief is

that negative social reaction, in the form of labelling, causes an actor to become one

with the deviant activity placed upon him, and, in many cases, leads to development

of further deviance. Theorists believe that the stigma people feel from this labelling

propels them toward, instead of away from, future deviance.

Lemert made a distinction between Primary deviance and Secondary Deviance that

labelling truly acquire prominence. Primary Deviance refers to an individual

committing any norm-violating behaviour, usually without personal or social

consequences. Secondary Deviation is deviant behaviour generated when one is

placed in a deviant social role as a result of negative social reactions – having been

processed and labelled as deviant. Once labelled, the individual incorporates this

deviant identity into himself and is likely to commit further deviance – a ‘self-

fulfilling prophecy’.

For example, the idea of labelling has been applied in the sociology of education,

where the activities of teachers in labelling certain students as ‘successes’ or ‘failures’

have been argued to be one of the most important factors in the educational

achievement and criminal future of individuals. The idea is that, if teachers

consistently apply a rule to a student – for example ‘trouble-maker’ – then the student

will come to believe that this is true and adopt the label as a ‘master status’. The

student will then begin to act in ways that conform to the master status, thus

establishing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We can see how Symbolic Interactionist’s primary concern – the actor’s interpretation

of the response of others – segues into labelling. Additionally, labelling has tenuous

connections to Conflict Theory as far as considering those at the top of the class

structure (those that make the rules), and those at the bottom of the class structures

(those who break rules and are powerless) who are more apt to be labelled. At one

time, labelling even denounced social control agencies and accused them of furthering

delinquency. There are other theories, like differential socialisation, social learning

and strain, that have been linked to labelling, and, together, would provide a more

conclusive approach to criminological research.

There are a number of questions which later theorists feel that labelling theory fails to

adequately answer. Firstly, although labelling theory emphasises that deviance

presupposes the existence of rules, they don’t really address the question of who

makes the rules. There is a tendency to focus upon lower level agents of social control

Partial preview of the text

Download Evaluate the usefulness of labelling theory to our understanding of crime and deviance and more Lecture notes Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!

Evaluate the usefulness of labelling theory to our understanding of crime and deviance (40 marks)

Synopticity – Crime & Deviance and Theory

Labelling theorists such as Becker and Lemert argue that because of the diversity of different values in society, there can never be a universally agreed definition of what constitutes ‘normal’ or ‘deviant behaviour’. What is deviant for one person may not be deviant for another. Labelling theorists argue that social reactions means labels are attached to certain people. For example, studies of the media by Cohen, Young etc. indicate that media social reaction may result in groups such as gays being labelled folk devils (such as aids carriers etc.). Fundamental to labelling’s traditional belief is that negative social reaction, in the form of labelling, causes an actor to become one with the deviant activity placed upon him, and, in many cases, leads to development of further deviance. Theorists believe that the stigma people feel from this labelling propels them toward, instead of away from, future deviance.

Lemert made a distinction between Primary deviance and Secondary Deviance that labelling truly acquire prominence. Primary Deviance refers to an individual committing any norm-violating behaviour, usually without personal or social consequences. Secondary Deviation is deviant behaviour generated when one is placed in a deviant social role as a result of negative social reactions – having been processed and labelled as deviant. Once labelled, the individual incorporates this deviant identity into himself and is likely to commit further deviance – a ‘self- fulfilling prophecy’.

For example, the idea of labelling has been applied in the sociology of education, where the activities of teachers in labelling certain students as ‘successes’ or ‘failures’ have been argued to be one of the most important factors in the educational achievement and criminal future of individuals. The idea is that, if teachers consistently apply a rule to a student – for example ‘trouble-maker’ – then the student will come to believe that this is true and adopt the label as a ‘master status’. The student will then begin to act in ways that conform to the master status, thus establishing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We can see how Symbolic Interactionist’s primary concern – the actor’s interpretation of the response of others – segues into labelling. Additionally, labelling has tenuous connections to Conflict Theory as far as considering those at the top of the class structure (those that make the rules), and those at the bottom of the class structures (those who break rules and are powerless) who are more apt to be labelled. At one time, labelling even denounced social control agencies and accused them of furthering delinquency. There are other theories, like differential socialisation, social learning and strain, that have been linked to labelling, and, together, would provide a more conclusive approach to criminological research.

There are a number of questions which later theorists feel that labelling theory fails to adequately answer. Firstly, although labelling theory emphasises that deviance presupposes the existence of rules, they don’t really address the question of who makes the rules. There is a tendency to focus upon lower level agents of social control

such as the police and not the role of the state. Marxist writers in particular have pointed out that there is a wider framework within which this is placed. Secondly, while labelling theorists point to the way agents of control draw upon stereotypes in their selective enforcement of the rules, they don’t examine the origin of these stereotypes. Thirdly, the concern with the effects of social reaction to primary deviance results in labelling theorists neglecting to examine the origins of primary deviance. Since Primary Deviation isn’t due to a social reaction, it’s obvious we’re left without explanation for the occurrence of Primary Deviance in the first place. Labelling’s interest is in the next crime, and not the significance of the crime itself, which queries the theory’s rationale. Indeed, while it may be true that the search for what prompts deviance is unilluminating, the origins of deviance do merit examination.

On the other hand, however, the criticism that labelling theory ignores the initial causes of deviance is dismissed by Plummer. He points out that, in practice, Interactionist’s have devoted considerable attention to explaining primary deviance. For example, Becker tries to explain how it’s possible to get involved in marijuana smoking. Some versions of labelling theory start their account of deviance at the point when labelling first occurs, but many other related Interactionists’ deal with the earlier stages of becoming deviant.

Nevertheless, there is a lacking of a very ordered theory with labelling. Part of this blame could be shifted to theorists for not keeping with the origin of labelling, Symbolic Interactionism. In its quest to gain acceptance into the field of criminology, and develop its critical ideas, labelling became overly concerned about the social reaction, forgetting the psychological and sociological parts to the equation. There is also no consideration of biological factors that might influence this process. Overall, logical consistency to this theory is lacking and it could even be described as an over simplistic explanation in failing to address other issues besides labelling.

Left realists such as Young and Lea have criticised labelling theory because certain powerless groups such as blacks do commit more street crime. They argue that we need to understand how certain groups interpret their structural position in society, e.g. how young blacks interpret institutionalised racism as well as labelling by the agents of social control. Young and Lea suggest that young blacks may feel relatively deprived in relation to young whites and consequently marginalised. They may respond by turning to both legitimate and illegitimate subcultures. Young and Lea therefore acknowledge the influence of labelling theory and adapt it to account for the reality of inner-city crime.

The idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy has also come under attack. The argument is that acting in accordance with a label is just one of several outcomes that might come about. An equally likely reaction by an individual to being labelled ‘trouble-maker’ is to try and show the teacher who has done the labelling that he/she is wrong. This is known as the self-negating prophecy. Another reaction might be to ignore the label completely, because it is unimportant to the individual so labelled. The theory is thus seen as deterministic – it assumes that once a person has been labelled, their deviance will inevitably become worse, and they have no option but to get more and more involved in deviant activities. But as Gouldner notes, if individuals can choose to take part in deviance then they may also choose to ignore a label.

Evaluate the usefulness of labelling theory to our understanding of crime and deviance, Lecture notes of Criminology

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Evaluate the usefulness of labelling theory to our understanding of crime and deviance and more Lecture notes Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!