Crime And Deviance: Interactionism And The Labelling Theory Flashcards
Labelling theory view of crime and deviance
Instead of seeking the causes of criminal behaviour, they ask how and why some people and actions come to be labelled as criminal / deviant
Official statistics are a social construct
Crime is caused by interactions, not caused by wider external forces such as blocked opportunities or capitalism
Lemert - primary deviation
Deviant acts before they are publicly labelled
EG fare dodging, littering etc.
Lemert says PD is relatively unimportant because the odd deviant act has little effect on people’s self conception and status - doesn’t affect their lives
Lemert - secondary deviation
Secondary deviation - the deviant behaviour engaged in as a result of being labelled
The important factor in producing deviance (according to labelling theorists) is societal reaction
The act is condemned by society - could lead to rejection or disapproval - the label may become internalised - SFP
The blame for deviance lies with the agents of social control rather than with the deviant
Crime statistics as a social construct
Crime stats only show an unrepresentative group of offenders who have been publicly labelled as criminal
This is because of the stereotypes and explanations that the police and other social control agencies have
Lemert’s study AO2
Stuttering and societal reaction: Canada
The problem of stuttering was caused by the importance attached to speech making - failure to speak well was a great humiliation
Children with the slightest speech difficulty were so conscious of their parents’ desire to have well-speaking children that they became anxious over their own abilities
This anxiety led to chronic stuttering
Evaluation of Lemert
Deterministic to suggest that the reactions of others will shape future deviance - Downes and Rock say people are free to choose a life not full of crime and deviance
Deviance is often overcome and a distinct phase within somebody’s life
Becker - the nature of deviance
Becker suggests that there is no such thing as a deviant act
An act only becomes deviant when others perceive and define it as such
Becker’ a view on the nature of deviance
Gave an example of a brawl with young people:
- in a low income neighbourhood: they’ll be viewed as delinquent
- in a wealthy neighbourhood: evidence of youthful spirits
What we count as C+D is based on subjective decisions made by moral entrepreneurs (agents of social control)
Becker - possible effects of labelling
A label can lead to becoming someone’s master status = it becomes their social status that overwhelms all the others statuses a person has
Our self concept is created by recognising how others see us - being aware of how we are labelled
Being labelled as deviant may produce a SFP whereby the label becomes one’s master status
People can become career criminals because they can’t shake off the label
Synoptic link to Becker’s effects of labelling
Rosenthal and Jacobson
Becker - the deviance amplification spiral
Negative label:
Some acts are publicly labelled. Secondary deviance then occurs as a result of societal reaction
Self concept:
Identity crisis = SFP
Label reinforced:
Begin to live up to their label and committing more secondary deviance
Master status:
Now people only see that person as that label = becomes their master status
Deviant career:
Secondary deviance - more hostile reactions and more deviance which leads to a deviant career (eg ex convict)
Young - hippie marijuana users
AO2 for deviance amplification spiral
The police had a media derived stereotype of hippie drug users as junkies. The marijuana users feel persecuted.
These smokers unite and makes them feel ‘different’. They become the ‘folk devil’
Hippies retreat into subcultures united around smoking marijuana. Deviant norms and values develop
Treated as outsiders, they express this through different lifestyle. Drugs now central to their identity = ‘drug subculture’ develops
Drug problem amplified + more join subculture
The original police stereotype is confirmed. Moral panic created by media = puts pressure on police to ‘solve the problem’. SFP.
Drug charges may close off opportunities in normal life e.g. employment = leads to DEVIANT CAREER
Stan Cohen - mods and rockers
AO2 for deviance amplification spiral
1960s - examined the clashes between two British subcultures, and how the media and societal labelling exacerbated the conflicts
Mods and Rockers didn’t get along
The media amplified the conflicts.
Media sensationalised minor incidents, portraying them as major acts of violence. This contributed to public fear
This labelling led to a SFP where young people began to behave in ways that conformed to these labels.
Police started to conduct mass arrests due to the increased media attention – reinforcing the negative image of these subcultures
Young people embraced deviant behaviour, further intensifying the social tensions between these groups.
Evaluation of young
Strength:
Shows that its not the act itself, but the hostile reaction that creates serious deviance
Weaknesses:
Is a deviant career an inevitable result of labelling
= not necessarily as people are free to do what they want / not deviate furhter
(Downes and Rock)
Cicourel
He found that social factors, including race, social class, and the location of the incident, played a significant role in the outcomes of juvenile justice cases
He argued that the decision to label a young person as a delinquent was not solely based on their actual behaviour but was also influenced by the social context and interactions that occurred
Cicourel - 2 cities compared
Found that law enforcers have typifications of what a criminal should look like = leads to social construction of crime statistics
Study of juvenile delinquency in 2 similar US cities - juvenile crime rates were higher in working class areas compared to middle class areas
This was due to police stereotypes occurring – they viewed the behaviour differently of W/C + M/C even if it was the same crime
Police believed M/C youth came from ‘good backgrounds’, that the crime/deviance was a ‘one-off thing’ = let them go /not charge /not take it further.
It was the opposite for the W/C youth – instead, the police took more formal action / more arrests / stricter.
Cicourel - the negotiation of justice
When mc juveniles were arrested they were less likely to be charged - their background did not align with the typical delinquent (police interpretations and stereotypes)
MC parents can present themselves as respectable and promise cooperation - thus mc juveniles are labelled as ill or committing a crime on accident
The over representation of wc youth in delinquency statistics is not because of a response to strain, but the outcome of biased law enforcement - delinquents are produced by agents of social control where only some (mostly wc) are labelled as deviant
AO2 of cicourel’s negotiation of justice
Bullingdon Club - Boris Johnson and David Cameron - Eton
Committing crime such as vandalism - seen as ‘letting off steam’
Reintegrative and disintegrative shaming
Braithwaite
Suggests a policy response that could avoid the consequence of reoffending is reintegrative shaming - this labels the act not the actor
Strengths / relevance of labelling theory
By problematising the nature of deviance, labelling theory opens up a range of previously ignored questions:
Who is making the laws? (Becker’s idea of moral entrepreneurs)
How are they enforcing it (Cicourel’s negotiation of justice)
How attempting to increase control actually leads to more crime (Becker’s deviance amplification spiral)
Criticisms of the labelling theory
Fails to explain primary deviance/why people offend in the first place, which occurs before they have been labelled
Deterministic: it wrongly assumes labelling automatically leads to a deviant career (link to fuller in education)
Implies that deviants do not know they are deviant until they are labelled but most know they are defying society’s norms
Fails to explain where labels come from e.g. the shared value system or capitalist ideology where all the power is concentrated
Ignores the possibility that labelling can reduce crime - e.g. reintegrative shaming avoids stigmatising the offender by condemning the act not the actor
