Interactionism Flashcards
Interactionist vs Structuralist
Interactionist theories of crime and deviance belong to the social action or interpretivist perspective.
This perspective is very critical of the structuralist approaches of functionalism, Marxism and feminism because they suggest deviant and criminal actions are largely a product of the social structure.
Structuralist theories of crime and deviance strongly imply that criminal action is largely the product of social forces – consensus, class and patriarchy – over which the individual has little control.
However, in contrast, social action theory argues people have free will and the choice to control their destiny.
4 Key Points
1) Crime is sociologically constructed
2) Not everyone who is deviant gets labelled as such
3) Labelling has real consequences
4) Labelling theory has a clear ‘value position’
Crime is sociologically constructed…
An act which harms an individual or society else only becomes criminal if those in power label that act as criminal.
Not everyone who is deviant gets labelled as such…
Negative labels are generally (deviant/ criminal) are generally given to the powerless by the powerful.
Labelling has real consequences…
It can lead to deviancy amplification, the self-fulfilling prophecy and deviant careers.
Labelling theory has a clear ‘value position’…
It should aim to promote policies that prevent labelling minor acts as deviant.
Criminality…
Interactionists are interested in looking at how criminality develops in the social interactions between a potential deviant and agents of social control.
They are interested in how people interpret and therefore socially construct the world around them. In this sense, interactionism is a social action approach.
Defining deviance…
Criminologists working from an interactionist perspective are interested in how crime and deviance are defined and how the label of ‘deviant’ or ‘criminal’ can lead to further problems for the individual and society.
Social constructions…
Interactionists believe that ‘normality’ and ‘deviance’ are relative concepts because there is no universal or fixed agreement on how to define them.
What is ‘normal’ behaviour for one social group might be ‘deviant’ behaviour for another.
Social context…
Interactionists point out that definitions of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ behaviour often differ according to social context.
For example, nudity is fine in some circumstances (in the privacy of the bathroom or bedroom and in public places such as nudist camps or particular beaches), tolerated and regarded as humorous at sporting events (streaking) but as a symptom of mental illness or criminality if persistently carried out in public (i.e. indecent exposure).
Historical differences…
Definitions of normality and deviance change according to historical period, e.g. homosexuality and suicide were defined as illegal activities until the 1960s.
Culture…
Definitions of normality and deviance are relative to cultural or subcultural context, e.g. drinking alcohol is illegal in Saudi Arabia and disapproved of by Muslims in the UK whilst what is ‘normal’ for a teenager in the UK might be seen as ‘deviant’ by adult society.
Interpretations…
Interactionists therefore believe that deviance is a matter of interpretation. For example, society generally disapproves of killing people. However, society has a number of different interpretations of killing – murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, self-defence, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment etc.
Some of these acts of killing are regarded as more justified and/or serious than others. For example, in the context of war, we encourage people as soldiers to kill others and often reward them for it with medals.
In 2012 the government announced that those who kill burglars in defence of their families and property are unlikely to be prosecuted.
Social construct and Becker…
Howard Becker argues that there is no such thing as a deviant act – no act is intrinsically criminal or deviant in itself, in all situations and at all times. Instead, it only defined as such when others label it as ‘wrong’.
In other words, it is not the nature of the act that makes it deviant, but society’s reaction to it. As Webb notes, deviance is in the eye of the beholder.
Power…
Becker argues that the social construction of deviance requires two activities. One group –which normally lacks power – acts in a particular way, and another group - with more power - responds negatively to it and defines it as criminal.
For Becker, therefore, a deviant is simply someone to whom a negative label has been successfully applied and deviant behaviour is simply behaviour that people with more power (e.g. parents, teachers, police officers etc) so label.
