Interactionalist views / Labelling theory Flashcards
Howard Becker (1963)
He points out that there is no act that is naturally deviant - deviance is defined by those who have power in society as they define right and wrong - crime and deviance are ‘relative’ terms.
According to Becker, whether or not a label is successfully applied to a person depends on:
a) HOW the act is interpreted by the audience.
b) WHO exactly commits the act
c) WHEN and where the act is committed
d) WHO observes the act and who gets to define it.
Aaron Cicourel (1968)
The negotiation of justice
The nature of the criminal justice process involves ‘subjective interpretations’ of ‘offenders’, their behaviors, and the chosen response from law enforcement agencies such as the police.
> These ‘typifications’ lead to ‘selective law enforcement as the over-policing and over-prosecuting and so successful ‘labeling’ of some people distorts the truth about crime as others ‘negotiate’ themselves out of trouble - the process is therefore, more significant in understanding crime than the outcome of how much crime is actually recorded
EVALUATION
>Accused of ignoring the deeper meaning behind typifications - he fails to explore reasons why such relationships exist in the first place.
Edwin Lemert (1972)
What is the impact of labeling?
He focuses on the way that society reacts to deviance.
> most people commit crimes (exceeding the speed limit, keeping too much change in the shop) - most people aren’t caught for such crimes, so there is not a societal reaction - Lemert calls this ‘primary deviance’
Where a person is caught, labeled, and faces a further reaction from society (what Lemert calls ‘secondary deviance’) the beginnings of a ‘crime problem’ emerges, and the following process takes place:
deviant act > deviant labelled > master status > self-fulfilling prophecy > further deviance.
if it wasn’t for society defining certain acts as ‘wrong’ labels would be avoided and ‘crime’ and ‘deviance’ would be low
avoiding self-fulfilling prophecies in particular help to avoid further criminalization of people
EVALUATION -
> Is Lemert too soft on the criminal - he makes excuses for the criminal which is considered far-fetched.
Jock Young (1971)
Hippy marijuana smoking in the 1960s
Study of deviance in the 1960s to apply main principles of labelling theory.
> ‘primary deviance’ of occasional drug use among ‘hippies’ was small-scale - once media had caught onto the issue negative reaction created ‘secondary deviance’.
hippies were given the ‘master status’ of drug abusers, which led to a strong reaction by the police and the public.
this led to self-fulfilling prophecies of increased drug use as hippies fought back against negative publicity.
led to a ‘subculture of deviance’ forming
Young points out negative labelling is the cause of deviance.
EVALUATION
> Research is outdated and very old
> Ignores reasons for drug use in the first place, before labelling.
Stan Cohen (1972)
He attempts to apply the main ideas behind labeling theory to societal reactions to social disturbances in the 1960s.
> by conducting many observations of youth gatherings in seaside reports, he noted:
minor scuffles that took place were massively exaggerated by the media
successful labeling of two youth groups in particular - the Mods and the Rockers - led to a chain of events that created problems, which had not previously existed…
FOLK DEVIL - youth targeted by media and blamed for disturbances that hadn’t taken place
STEREOTYPES EXAGGERATE POOR BEHAVIOUR - ‘out of control’, ‘carefree’ etc.
MORAL ENTEPRENEURS DEMAND A ‘CRACK DOWN’ - media negativity leads to growing concern among ‘respectable’ groups like the Church, middle class, and teachers. Pressure mounted on police to do something about the ‘problem’
SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES BEGINS TO OCCUR - as young people become aware of media negativity, real differences between the Mods and Rockers emerge, creating real tensions
DEVIANCY AMPLIFICATION - real increases in the conflict between the Mods and the Rockers takes place, creating a real crime problem when one did not exist previously.
Goffyman (1961)
Asylums
Talks about the impact on a person who is labeled as ‘mentally ill’
> the ‘closed’, regimented environment quickly results in ‘mortification on the self’ - this means that they change their original identity and start to see themselves as ‘mentally ill’
every aspect of their behavior is defined in terms of the label they’ve been given.
it becomes a ‘master status’ and makes it difficult for them to re-establish their own identity and live on the outside once more.
Labelling and Social Policy
The work of labelling theorists has had a profound impact on government policy - this has been shaped in two main ways:
1)Minimise the use of labels:
> the use of a label to shape and define a person should be avoided at all costs, according to government
> labelling a person for their wrong-doing increases chances of a ‘master status
EXAMPLE - 2014 UK drugs law - the likelihood of cannabis users being criminalised, and labelled was reduced, classing cannabis as a “class C drug”
2) Use ‘naming and shaming, to maximise the use of labelling:
> following the murder of Sarah Payne in August 2000, there were calls to allow parents in the area to know where registered sex offenders lived - this is a step of ‘naming and shaming’
EVALUATION:
> For ‘naming and shaming - can lead to risking the wrong person being targeted - for example, people in Bristol targeted the wrong person, mistaking them for a paedophile, this is very dangerous
