Interactionalism and Labelling Flashcards
Interactionism is different to other theories we have/will learn about for the following reasons:
- It believes studying the causes of crime is pointless
- It believes that Official Crime Statistics (OCS) are socially constructed
It believes studying the causes of crime is pointless
Many people involve themselves in crime and deviance, therefore it’s hard to distinguish between ‘deviants’ and ‘non deviants’. Attempting to explain the causes of crime (e.g. in terms of blocked opportunities) are therefore pointless
They are interested in how and why particular groups and acts become defined as criminal/deviant in the first place, while others are not, and how this affects their future actions
It believes that Official Crime Statistics (OCS) are socially constructed
They don’t accept that official statistics are accurate, they think they are social constructs - showing only an unrepresentative group of offenders who happen to have been caught and publicly labelled as ‘criminal’ because of the assumptions and stereotypes held by agencies of social control e.g. police, while actions of groups who do not become labelled remain in the ‘dark figure of crime’
Becker (1963)
argues that a deviant is someone who has been labelled as such and deviant behaviour is ‘deviant’ because it was labelled as such by specific groups in society, not because the behaviour itself is inherently deviant
E.g. a fight in a bar will be interpreted in different ways depending on who is there and the identity of the individuals fighting
In a low-income area this may be defined by the police as delinquency. arrests may follow.
In a wealthy area it may be defined as youthful high spirits, with no arrests.
The acts are the same but the meaning given to them by observers, in this instance the public and police, is different. The people with power have ‘created’ criminals out of the first group above.
Becker - Moral entrepreneurs
What constitutes a crime or act of deviance is based on subjective decisions made by ‘moral entrepreneurs’
Moral entrepreneurs - social groups and people, who are usually in a position of power, such as politicians, pressure groups, teachers or religious leaders - who are able to influence what/who gets labelled as criminal /deviant.
They lead a moral ‘crusade’ to make changes the law and rules in the belief that it will benefit society/the community etc.
This illustrates the view that some have more power than others to influence what is labelled as criminal /deviant
However, Becker argued that moral entrepreneurs cause two effects. Creating a new law/rule leads to:
- The creation of a new group of ‘outsiders’ – outlaws or deviants who break the new rule.
or
- The creation or expansion of a social control agency (such as the police) to enforce the rule and impose new labels on offenders
Becker notes that agents of social control, particularly the police and the judiciary, work on behalf of powerful groups to label and therefore define the behaviour of less powerful groups as problematic. E.g. working class, youth, some minority ethnic groups, LGBT+
They do this by paying these groups disproportionate negative attention in terms of stop and search, arrest, prosecution and giving them custodial sentences etc.
Whether a person is arrested, charged and convicted depends on:
Their interactions with agents of social control e.g. police, probation officers, court officials
Their appearance and background (often linked to class, gender and ethnicity, among other factors)
The situation/circumstances of the offence
Labelling theorists have found social control agencies are more likely to act unfairly and label certain groups negatively than others
They, therefore, applying the notion of ‘justice’ unfairly
Master status
A master status is one that displaces all the other features of a person’s social standing
This label will override all the other characteristics the individual possesses
Aaron Cicourel - Negotiation of Justice
The police held stereotypes (common sense theories) about what the typical delinquent is like. He called these ‘typifications’. This meant that they concentrated on certain ‘types’. Police saw a typical offender to be from a poor background. This resulted in law enforcement showing a working class bias, in that working class areas and people fitted the police typifications more closely, leading to police patrolling working class areas more intensively. This resulted in more arrests. So an individual that was closest to their view of a typical offender would be more likely officially cautioned (police record would be kept) which would mean that it would appear on the official statistics. The fact they appeared more in the crime statistics then confirmed the police stereotypes as true, leading to even more policing of these groups and even more arrests, convictions and so on. This could be seen as similar to the idea of criminal profiling that is used now to locate a certain type of criminal to a specific type of crime. The police have also been criticised for the use of racial profiling in decisions to stop and search suspects (see article below).
After arrest, other agents of social control within the criminal justice system reinforced this bias. E.g. probation officers (people whose job it is to support offenders) held the stereotype that juvenile delinquency was caused by broken homes, poverty and poor parenting. They tended to see youths from these backgrounds as likely to reoffend in the future and were more likely to support prison sentences for them.
Social Construction of Crime Statistics
Interactionists see official crime statistics as socially constructed
At each stage of the criminal justice system, agents of social control (e.g. police, prosecutors) make decisions about whether or not to proceed to the next stage.
This will be affected by the label they attach to each suspect during their interactions with them. This is likely to be based on stereotypes or typifications that they hold about them.
As a result, the statistics only tell us about the activities of police and prosecutors, rather than the actual amount of crime taking place or who commits it.
Dark figure of crime
The difference between the official statistics and the ‘real’ rate of crime - all the hidden crime that goes undetected, unreported and unrecorded
Lemert - Impact of labelling
Primary deviance: An act that isn’t publically labelled as deviant because it has gone unnoticed
He argues that it is pointless to seek the causes of primary deviance as the perpetrators do not see themselves as deviant and are not part of an organised deviant life. It doesn’t form part of their identity or self-concept.
Secondary deviance: if deviance is repetitive and highly visible, society reacts and applies a label.
The individual is stigmatised and this affects the opportunities they have for employment, friendship, relationships etc.
The individual then starts behaving consistently according to their label, which leads to more deviance, which is further reacted to and so a spiral of deviance emerges.
Lemert - Impact of labelling Study
Lemert studied ‘stuttering’ native American communities.
Pacific Coastal communities value public speaking and stuttering was labelled and a source of shame.
By contrast inland communities had no word for stuttering and Lermet found no evidence of stuttering in these communities
This suggests the act of labelling contributes to and encourages the deviant behaviour.
Master status
A deviant label can be so powerful and dominant that it overrides all other statuses they have
Labels like ‘druggie’, ‘delinquent’, ex-con’ and ‘paedophile’ become the ‘master status’ which is used by society to interpret all future behaviour by that individual
E.g. if a person is labelled as a ‘sex offender’ the label shapes other people’s reactions to them regardless of other statuses they may have e.g. ‘father’, ‘son’, ‘footballer’ etc.
This can lead to prejudice and discrimination / treating someone as an ‘outsider’
Self fulfilling prophecy
When an individual is labelled and reacted to according to their ‘master status’, it’s likely to affect their self-esteem and self-concept.
They are likely to internalise (take on board) that label and start to see themselves according to the label
They will start to live up to that label, conforming to the behaviour associated with their label, even if the original label wasn’t true
This then confirms other people’s assumptions that have been made about them as correct
Once a deviant label becomes a master status, an individual may find it hard to conform to many of society’s other rules, such as holding down a job, and then the specific deviant becomes a general deviant
