Labelling

Labelling

1. Symbolic interactionism

   • a school/movement within US sociology dating back from early/mid 20th century
   • Dual emphasis - symbolic because it focuses on the meanings that social situations have for actors involved and its interactionist because meanings are seen to be shaped by interactions between actors
   • Becker: defines a deviant as someone to whom a label has been successfully applied after moral entrepreneurs lead a moral crusade against the behaviour - once labelled by others the person views themselves as offender and outsider due to interactions which push the offender label
   • Charles Cooley - looking glass self - view ourselves via interactions with others
   • Mead - self is essentially a social structure and arises from social experiences - perceive ourselves through the social experience and social interaction - need social experience to develop concept of ourselves
   • Tannenbaum - process of making a criminal comes from tagging, defining, ID, segregation, making conscious and self-conscious... self-conscious comes from the way others label us... by defining, labelling and ID people will actually invoke, stimulate and emphasis the traits complained of
   • Walklate - labelling originates from the work of George Herbert Mead on symbolic interactionalism -understanding the process of society/social life and how meaning are assigned to these processes
   • Plummer - not deterministic like labelling theory as the whole interactionist perspective places great stress on choices open to individuals as they interpret what happens around them and decide how to respond

2. Becker: deviancy as a social process

   • social group create deviance by making the rules whose infractions constitute deviancy and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders - those who constantly break the rules come to be known as outsiders - outsiders see those who label them as outsiders
   • Deviancy is not a quality of the act the person commits but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to the offender - deviancy is a function of labelling deviant is one to whom that label has been sucessfully been applied - deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label - leading to SFP and criminal career
   • Paliavin and Briar - supports Becker by arguing that Police stop youth crime from phsyical cues (environmental crime prevention) - reducing involvement and punishment - reduced labels
   • Triplett - zero tolerance policies cause yougn offenders to commit more crime
   • Walklate: becker Looks at how behaviour is labelled, by who and the reactions to this label
   • Wilkins - tendency for D to become structurally isolated from majority

3. Cicourel

   • argues that police have typification and commonsense knowledge about who to arrest - typifications fit closely with working class ethnic minority - arrests confirm this typology
   • he thought probation officers and other agencies of social control were more likely to be harsh on working class offenders because they fit teh typifications that state poverty causes crime
   • said the justice system is negotiable - label who they want.who teh ruling class tell them to label/trat criminal
   • thought that official statistics dont give an accurate picture of C - just full of those poeple others label as criminal - may not even be criminal - just labelled and treated that way

4. Braidwaite

   • 2 types of labels used on societies: reintergrative shaming and disintergrative shaming
   • Reintergrative - offenders act is labelled as criminal but the individual is not labelled as criminal - allows the offender to take responsibility and reintergrate into society and stop offending
   • Disntegrative shaming - offender and offence is labelled as criminal

5. Lemert

   • Primary and secondary deviance.. primary deviance is often a temporary waywardness and perpetrators have to conception of themselves as deviant... secondary deviance is created through the reaction of others to the initial deviance
   • through name calling, stereotyping and labelling a deviant ID is established and confirmed - often deviants resolve this personality crisis by accepting their deviant status and reorganising their lives accordingly - become more deviant rather than less deviant
   • primary deviance is most petty crime, it is widespread and is rationalised away so has very little impact on offenders status... secondary deviance is a reaction to being labelled, the crisis of ID causes a labelled person to begin a SFP and commit to secondary deviance - society cements the outsider/deviant label which causes secondary deviance - joining a subculture will eventually stabalise a secondary deviant statis
   • Primary deviance - initial flirtation and experimentation with D behaviour... secondary deviance - D becomes incorporated as part of the me of the individual due to them adapting the societal reactions
   • criticised juvenile court system - wanted to stop juvenile intervention so to reduce stigma and recidivism.. wabted to move away from punishment as this causes labels leading people towards secondary deviance - should focus on welfare rather than punish the young for primary deviance - demonstrated in 2/3 re-offending rate from prison
   • Labels cause a symbolic reorganisation of the self
   • Lemert :( fails to explain why more commit primary deviance than are labelled and go on to commit secondary deviance
   • Downs and Rock - lemert is too deterministic and doesn't give enough attention to free will
   • doesnt explain the origins of the deviant act - too focused on effects of societal reaction to primary deviance meaning they neglect examining the orgins of the deviant act - since primary deviance is not due to societal reaction we are left will no explanation for its occurance - instead of focusing on why primary deviancy causes secondary deviance they should want to address and explain the causes of primary deviance - theory is therefore willfully blind to teh motivation which lie behind the initial behaviours.
     • Plummber - interactionists and labelling theoriests have devoted considerable amount of attention on explaining primary D e.g. Becker tried to explain how it was possible to get involved with smoking weeds, some versions of LT start their account of D when labelling 1st occurs and many interactionists deal with early stages of becoming D
   • some individuals can assume a deviant ID and manifest all the features of secondary deviance without any public labelling occurring - dont have to have primary act of D to be labelled to be criminal

6. Goffman

   • initial act of violence has no importance/impact on individual
   • said inmates go through process of mortification in institutions which makes them accept institutions definitions of themselves - process of mortification changes persons ID - mortification causes the individual to become institutionalised and feel anxiety about release... every day institutional actions such as timetabled days, staff power and little freedom cements mortification/the criminal ID
   • Master status makes it hard for people in institutions to re-enter social life - the inability of inmates to accept the outside work may only be a period of disculturation or long-term causing teh individual to commit further crime
   • Fails to explain why people are deviant in teh first place
   • Taylor et al - Goffmans definition of deviance is mistaken - says that they are only devient is they define themselves as deviant
   • Gould - goffmans study suggests all are passive
   • Ackers - Goffmans study is deterministics

7. Media and moral panics

   • Young, Cohen and Lamert - media amplifies deviancy causing moral panics - labels
   • McRobbie and Thronton - say moral panics have less impact on society today due to frequency, context, reflexivity and difficulty (less clarity between good and bad) - meaning people aren't labelled as quickly
   • Moral panics are a way of labelling leading to crime control - groups create moral panic to benefit themselves - scapegoats - black muggers in 80's
   • Wilkins - Moral panics cause deviancy amplification which causes.forces deviants to make own subculture and take on label
   • Youngs study on hippes - moral panic over marijunana smoking hippies at Notting Hill - once police got involved and state labels as deviant they became more deviant and took on the label by increasing drug use
   • Walklate - found police regulate those groups stereotyped as criminal more

8. Downs and David

   • Labellig theory developed strongly around 1960's/70's
   • Deviancy itself is defined as a product of the ideas and meanings which people form themselves and from others
   • People are constrained to react to a filtered and limited conception of themselves, each other and situations in which they meet.
   • Deviant behaviour is behaviour labelled by the conventional or conforming members of a groups - should focus on social audience as they are the people who determine whether a behaviour is deviant - public definition can translate into a master status or pivotal feature of teh offenders personality

9. Criticism of labelling theory

   • Labelling fails to address the root causes of D such as structural inequalities and individual forms of psychosis that produce D or structural forces such as erosion of p household
   • :) has articuated a set of social processes that we can continue to see repeated in CJS today - welfare model
   • assumes people analyse situations - do they - Cicourel questions whether one does order oneself or life by role analysis
   • Goulder - it states that individuals are responsible for deviant acts - says they are more sinned against than sinners
   • Akers - states that society randomly labels people with stigmatised labels - do people really go round labelling people - teacher study
   • Lack of order in labelling theory - theorists do not keep with origin of labelling - become overly concerned about social reaction forgetting they psychological and sociological parts to the equation - ignores biology - logical consistency to this theory is therefore lacking and it could be described as over-simplistic explanation failing to address other issues other than labelling
   • Phenomenologists state that the LT is deterministic - it states/assumes that once a person is/has been labelled, their deviance will inevitably become worse and they have no option but to get more and more involved in deviant activities - what about a self-negating prophecu
   • Goulder - deterministic as it assumes people will accept the label - if individuals can chose to take part in deviance then they can also choose to ignore the label
   • What about the v - completely ignore - romantises crime
   • LR such as Young and Lea criticise LT because it ignores teh fact that certain powerless groups such as blacks do not commit more street crime - just just as scapegoat - they argue that we need to understand how certain groups interpret their structural positive in society e.g. how young blacks interpret institutionalised racism as well as labelling by the agents of social control.. argue that Young black males may feel relatively deprived to young whites and consequently marginalised - they may respond by turning both illegitimate and legitimate subcultures - Young and Lea therefore achknowldge the influence of LT and adapt it to account for the reality of inner city crime
   • only explains few crimes - common forms of everyday crime such as property crime are missing from the analysis.. Young - can't single handedly explain all deviance
   • Offenders are seen as passive and dont play a role in labelling process - seen as passive victims - but do people choose to commit crime because the rewards outweigh the benefits
   • is nothing intrinsically wrong
   • why is some behaviour labelled and not others
   • ignores power relations - focuses on mid-level agencies of social control such as police and courts but it lacks proper analysis of the origins of teh definitions of law and crime used by agents of social control
   • due to focus on outsider groups it also overlooks the c of the powerful and the inherent violence and exploitation of the capitalist economy
   • Policy implications: if you believe in LT then we should therefore decriminalise the young or minor offenders, use diversion, RJ and deinstiutionalise, welfare model etc (Empey).. shouldn't label when young and give them a chance to grow out of crime (Schram)