Crime - Theories of Crime - 4.1 (Interactionism) Flashcards
General Interactionist view on Deviance as a Social Construct
No act is deviant, but labelling makes it so, so is a social construct.
Crime as Social Construct Key Sociologists
> Becker (Crime as Social Construct & Moral Entrepreneurs)
> Platt (Moral Entrepeneurs)
> Briar (Differential Enforcement)
> Circourel (Typfications, Negotiation of Justice, Crime Stats)
Becker view on Crime as Social Construct
> Groups create deviance through rules, applying them to people they see as outsiders.
> People only become deviant when labelled as so.
Who are Moral Entrepreneurs?
> People who decide what’s morally acceptable in society e.g. government & parents.
> Begin a mission to see new laws created then policed in the belief that it will benefit in particular vulnerable groups in society.
Platt view on Moral Entrepreneurs
> Juvenile delinquents, campaign by upper class Victorian moral entrepreneurs, wanting to protect young people.
> Made juvenile courts & extended powers to status offences e.g. truancy.
Becker view on Social Control Agencies as moral entrepreneurs to increase own powers
> US Bureau of Narcotics, campaigned for Marijuana Tax Act, to protect young people, but really to expand influence.
> Not harmfulness of behaviour, leading to new law, but efforts of powerful individuals.
Briar view on Differential Enforcement
> Social Control Agencies label certain groups as criminal, decisions to arrest based on appearance, gender, class, ethnicity.
> e.g. ASBO’s commonly given to BAME.
Circourel’s Idea of Typifcations
> Police have idea of the working class as typical delinquent individuals, so police these areas more, leading to more arrests, confirming stereotype.
> Held view that there youth delinquency, due to lone parent families & poverty, so stigmatise working class & unlikely to give non-custodial sentences to them.
Marxist Criticisms of Cicourel - Typifications
Fails to locate origins of labels in unequal capitalist society.
Cicourel - Negotiation of Justice (Difference between working class and middle class children)
> Middle class: parents are able to negotiate the child out of the justice system, convincing them, it won’t occur again, so likely to see it as a one off & let them go.
> But working class parents are less likely to do the same & actually feel they deserve to be punished.
Cicourel - Crime Statistics as a Topic Not a Resource
> Crime statistics aren’t valid, so shouldn’t be taken at face value.
> Should look at how they’re socially constructed, don’t tell us about the dark figure of crime.
> Victim surveys & self report studies should be used instead.
Criticisms of Cicourel - Crime Stats as Topic Not Resource
Limitations of alternatives to official crime statistics - people may lie in self-report studies.
Effects of Labelling Key Sociologists
> Lemert (Primary and Secondary Deviance)
> Young (Hippy Marijuana Users)
> Cohen (Deviancy Amplification)
> Triplett (Labelling & Criminal Justice System Policy)
> Braithwaite (Reintegrative Shaming)
2 Types of Deviance - Lemert
> Primary
> Secondary
Primary Deviance - Lemert (1)
Not publicly labeled, unnoticed & meaningless ‘’moment of madness’’ - so people don’t self identify as deviant.
Secondary Deviance - Lemert (2)
Results from societal reaction, caught and labelled as criminal, excluded from normal society. E.g. as thief, junkie, pedo
How does Master Status occur as Reaction to SD (Lemert) (3)
> People see offender only in terms of label, excluded from society & becomes master status
> Begin to act up to label & becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
How does Deviant Career as Reaction to Master Status (4)
> Promotes further hostile reactions from society, hard to make amends e.g. lack of employment.
> Become an outsider & join deviant subcultures for status, confirms deviant identity.
Define Deviancy Amplification
Where a group becomes more deviant, as result of media exaggeration of deviance, in attempts to control them leads to an escalating spiral.
Who are Folk Devils?
Scapegoat, group media focuses on as outsiders & deviant, blamed for social problems, subject of moral panic
Young - Hippy Marijuana Users
> Drugs were minor part of hippies lifestyle, policies persecution of them as junkies.
> So develop deviant subcultures, where drug use became central activity
> Actions of police caused more crime - deviancy amplification.
Mods & Rockers as example of Deviancy Amplification
> Media exaggeration began moral panic with growing public concern.
> Moral entrepreneurs called for crackdown, so police arrested more youth, leading to more concern.
> Seeing Mod and Rockers as folk devils, marginalised them further, resulting in more deviance.
Labelling & Criminal Justice Policy - Triplett
> Tendency to see young people as evil & less tolerant of minor deviance, which creates more deviance
> So logical to have fewer rules e.g. decriminalising soft drugs
> Solution is to reduce number with convictions & end shame culture.
2 Types of Shaming - Braithwaite
> Disintegrative Shaming
> Reintegrative Shaming
Disintegrative Shaming
Where crime & person is shamed & they’re excluded from society
Why is Reintegrative Shaming better than Disintegrative
Label act but not actor, so opportunity for person to be forgiven, stops labelling & secondary deviance, so no self-fulfilling prophecy.
Examples of Reintegrative Shaming
> Rehabilitation
> Restorative Justice
Criticisms of Braithwaite
Focus on how to rehabilitate offenders, not why they offend in the first place.
Strength of Labelling Theory
Links to Education
A03 Criticisms of Labelling Theory - Key Sociologists)
> Downes & Rock (Determinism)
> Marxism (Power Structures)
Downes & Rock (Determinism)
Not everyone who’s been labelled will follow a deviant career, free to chose to not deviate more.
General Criticisms of Labelling Theory
> Why do people commit primary deviance in the first place, some actively chose deviance without labelling.
> Deviant becomes the victim & thus not to blame for behaviour.
General Interactionist view on Mental Health & Suicide
Rejects reliance on official statistics , to understanding suicide, we need to study meanings of those who do it.
Mental Health & Suicide Key Sociologists
> Douglas (Meaning of Suicide)
Atkinson (Coroners Commonsense Knowledge)
Lemert (Paranoia as a self-fulfilling prophecy)
Goffman (Institutionalisation)
Douglas - Meaning of Suicide
> Rejects official statistics, as they’re social constructs, don’t give us a full picture, only tells about label applied by coroners & opinions of friends & family.
> Suicide notes, diaries, letters & interviews better for true meanings.
Criticisms of Douglas
No reason to believe sociologist interpretation, will be truer than coroners.
Atkinson - Coroners Commonsense Knowledge
> Official statistics based on coroners with taken for granted assumptions, when reaching verdicts on suicide, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy
> Ideas on typical suicide effected verdict e.g. types of death, locations seen as typical of suicides.
Criticisms of Atkinson
> If all we have are interpretations & not facts about social world.
> His theory itself is a interpretation & there is no good reason to accept it.
Interactionist view on Mental Illness & official statistics
> See use of official statistics on mental illness as social construct
> Just recording activities of doctors with the power to attach labels e.g. depression.
Lemert - Paranoia as a self-fulfilling prophecy
> People may not fit into groups, due to primary deviance so they begin to be excluded
> Their negative response leads to secondary deviance, others are concerned about his mental health
> So this leads to a medical label of paranoia & label mental patient becomes the master status.
Example of Total Institution
Psychiatric Hospital
Goffman on Institutionalisation - Effects of being admitted to Total Institutions
> Patient undergo mortification of self, where prior identities killed off.
> Replaced with identity of inmate, through degradation rituals e.g. confiscation of personal possessions.
