interactionist perspective on crime and deviance

Question 1

what are all they key words for the interactionist perspective of crime and deviance

Answer 1

labelling theory, master status, self fulfilling prophecy, primary and secondary deviance, moral entrepeneurs, negotiated justice, mortification

Question 2

what are all they key names for the interactionist perspective of crime and deviance

Answer 2

becker, lemert, young, goffman, cicourel, braithwaite

Question 3

what are becker’s six steps to the labelling process

Answer 3

1. MORAL ENTREPENEURS label individuals and their behaviours as deviant
2. once an individual or group is labelled e.g. as criminal, deviant, or mentally ill, others see them only in terms of that label

3.it becomes what becker calls a MASTER STATUS

4. labelling also causes the labelled group or individual to see themselves in terms of the label

5.this may produce a self fulfilling prophecy in which the label becomes true

6. this then result sin a deviant career

Question 4

Becker

Answer 4

He argues that there is no such thing as a deviant act. An act only becomes deviant when it is perceived that way by individuals in society.

Becker suggests that the police operate with pre-existing conceptions and stereotypical ideas of what constitutes as a ‘criminal’ and criminal areas etc. This affects the response they have to these individuals.

Question 5

what can be a critical evaluation for becker and the labelling theory

Answer 5

people and groups have been labelled, and over time this daemonisation has worn off e.g. Nelson Mandela, the suffragettes

Question 6

Stan cohen

Answer 6

an Cohen (1972): illustrated how the media can sensationlise and exaggerate the reporting of Crime and deviance. The term moral panic was used to describe this process. It is based on a false or exaggerated idea that some group’s behaviour is deviant and is a menace to society. Cohen Used the term ‘folk devil’ to refer ito such groups. Moral panics are generally fuelled by media coverage of social issues.

Cohen studied Mods and Rockers in the 1960s. In the absence of a major story one wet Easter weekend a minor affray in Clacton became front page news. The media developed these groups into folk devils’ and constructed a ‘moral panic’ about young people generally.

Cohen noted how the media used ‘symbolic shorthands’ such as hair styles, items of clothing.modes of transport, etc. as icons of troublemakers

Question 7

What are the three stages of moral panics

Answer 7

Symbolisation.

Exaggeration and distortion

Prediction of further trouble

Question 8

What are examples of moral panics

Answer 8

Young black males, and knife crime

Immigration problem- hijab

Question 9

How could moral panics benefit ruling class

Answer 9

Acts as a hedgemonic curtain and divides and rules

Question 10

Case study for self fulfilling prophecy in crime and deviance

Answer 10

Jock Young (1971 Labelling and marijuana users:

Young used Becker’s approach in his study of “hippie’ marijuana users in London. Using a ep
participant observation he studied this group over a period of 2 years to demonstrate the work of Cohen and how the media generates deviant behaviour. He found that the police had a media derived stereotype of hippie drug users as junkies and layabouts - Marijuana users feel prosecuted by the police. The Police then united marijuana users by making them feel like outsiders. In self- defence the hippies then retreated info a closed group unified around marijuana smoking and deviant norms and values. They were then defined and treated as outsiders- they expressed this difference through radical dress sense and long hair- a drug subculture was developed. The original police stereotype was created and confirmed- self-fulfilling prophecy. Their opportunities for normality are then reduced becaUse of labelling, the drug problem is amplified. Then drugs charges may lead to segregation and also the Possibility of a normal life is reduced and may lead to a deviant career.

Question 11

What’s the strengths and limits of Young’s study

Answer 11

Limits: background of researcher

Strength: representation of group, informed consent, verstehen

Question 12

Edwin lemert

Answer 12

Distinguishes primary and secondary deviance

Primary:insignificant acts that haven’t been labelled publicly e.g. caught speeding

Secondary: result of a societal reaction being caught and publicly labelled as deviant and stigmatised by society

Question 13

Why is trying to find causes of primary deviance not helpful

Answer 13

Trying to find the causes of primary deviance is not very helpful because:
Samples of deviants are inevitably based only on those who have been labelled, and therefore
are unrepresentative.
Most deviant acts are so common that they can be, in statistical terms, normal. Most males may
engage in delinquency at some point etc.

Question 14

Erving goffman

Answer 14

Erving Goffman: Deviance and the Institution (e.g. of Sec Dev):

Goffman examined the treatment of mental patients in institutions and his findings illustrate the idea of Lemert’s secondary deviance. He found how deviance can actual be created by the societal reaction to it.

When inmates arrive in the mental hospital, pressure is placed on them to accept the institution’s definition of them as ‘mentally ill’. The inmates’ individuality is removed through what Goffman calls a MORTIFICATION PROCESS.

e.g. uniform, same haircut

Question 15

John braithwaite

Answer 15

John Braithwaite (1989): Shaming through labelling

Braithwaite argues that there are two types of shaming involved in labelling:

1. Disintegrative Shaming-. where not only the crime, but the person is labelled negatively and is excluded from society. (e.g. child sex offenders)
2. Re-integrative shaming- where by the act is labelled, but not the person. E.g. Petty crime.

Braithwaite argues that the second type of shaming has a more posifive role. Reintegrativeshaming avoids stigmatising the offender whilst still making them, and others, aware of the negative impact of their offence. This encourages forgiveness and acceptance back into society. Braithwaite argues that reintegrative shaming avoids pushing people back into
secondary deviance.

Question 16

Examples of disintegrative and reintegrative

Answer 16

Disintegrative: child sex offenders

Reintegrative: petty crime

Question 17

What traditional structural theorists can braithwaite link to

Answer 17

Marxism

Functionalism

Question 18

Cicourel

Answer 18

Cicourel (1968) - Typifications and The Negotiation of Justice

Used a phenomenological approach to understand how law enforcers make sense
interpret what they see. Officers’ decisions to arrest are influenced by their stereotypes about offenders Cicourel found that officers TYPIFICATIONS (their common-sense theories or stereotypes
what the typical delinquent is like) - led them to concentrate on certain types.

Task 9:

Typific ations include Asian, young, dark clothes, black, etc.

He argued that these typifications led to the higher arrest of certain groups of people and also increased police presence in areas that hada higher density of people that fit the typification - leading to more arrests of the people living in these areas.

Question 19

Cicourel negotiation

Answer 19

cicourel also found that other agents of social.contolwithin the criminal justice system reinforced this bias. For example, probation officers held the common-sense theory that juvenile delinquency was caused by broken homes. poverty and lax parenting. Therefore. they tended to see youths from such backgrounds as likely 1to offend in the future and were less likely to support non custodial sentences for them. In Cicourel’s view, justice is not foxed but negotiable. For example, when a middle-clcss youth ws
arrested, he was less likely to be charged. This was partly because his background did not fit the idea of the police’s ‘typical delinquent’, and partly because his parents were more likely to be able to NEGOTIATE SUCCessfully on his behalf, convincing the control agencies that he was sorry that they would monitor him and ensure he stayed out of trouble in future, etc. As a result typically, he was ‘counselled, warned and rele ased, rather than prosecuted.

Question 20

What would Marxists say about cicourels negotiation theiry

Answer 20

That cultural capital divided how you can negotiate with authorities. E.g. elaborated code is more favoured and doesn’t fit delinquent background

Question 21

What are all the strengths of interactionalism

Answer 21

1. It provides insights into the nature of deviance not provided by structural theories

2.it challenges the idea that deviants are different to normal people

3. It shows the importance f the reactions of others in creating and defining deviance
4. It reveals the importance of stereotyping

5.Shows how far official stats are socially constructed by police bias rather than

6. reveals the role of those in power in defining what is deviant
7. it highlights the role of moral entrepreneurs like the media when defining and creating
   deviance
8. lt shOws how labelling can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy
9. If shows the potential impact of moral panics

Question 22

What are all the limitations of interactionalism

Answer 22

1.it removes the blame for deviance oft the individual; the deviant becomes a victim of
labelling.

2.it assumes acts are not deviant until they are labelled as such but we often know acts are
deviant before anyone is aware that they have taken place.

3. It doesn’t look at the causes of deviance that precede the labelling process or the
   different acts e.g. theft is different to murder.
4. It is too deterministic-it doesn’t show how some people choose 6to be deviant, also
   labelling won’t always lead to an SFP.
5. It doesn’t explain where siereotypes come from.
6. It has little to say about victims of crime.
7. It has no real policy solutions fo crime.
8. lt fails to explain why some are labelled and not others.