Labelling Theory

Question 1

Key assumptions

Answer 1

They reject official statistics on crime, making them part of their subject of study. They see them as a social construction (underreporting etc) and so underestimate crime (especially middle class crime).

• They reject structural causal explanations of crime and deviance (e.g. functionalist and realist). Instead they look at the way crime and deviance is socially constructed.
• They favour in-depth qualitative approaches when investigating crime and deviance. For example, informal interviews, observation and personal documents.

Question 2

The nature of deviance is socially constructed- Becker

Answer 2

Becker (1963) maintains that what we count as crime and deviance is based on subjective decisions made by ‘moral entrepreneurs’ (agents of social control).

• He argues that deviance is simply forms of behaviour that powerful agencies of social control define or label as such (i.e. societal reaction).
• For example, psychiatrists have ‘created’ mental illnesses such as nightmare disorder.
• For Becker the socially constructed nature of crime and deviance means that it varies over time and between cultures e.g prostitution.

Extension

• Ethnomethodologists argue that ‘deviance is in the eye of the beholder’.
• What one person might see as deviant another might not.
• This can be illustrated with debates about ‘conceptual art’.
• Some see the work of artists such as Tracey Emin and Webster and Noble as art deviant or even sick, whereas others celebrate it as original and inspirational.

Question 3

The extent of deviance is socially constructed- Becker

Answer 3

1. Selective labelling

• Becker (1963) claims that the amount and distribution of crime and deviance in society is shaped by selective law enforcement.
• Becker argues that whether a deviant is labelled depends on who has committed and observed the deviant act, when and where the act was committed and the negotiations that take place between the various ‘social actors’ (people) involved.
• He suggests that powerless groups (including the young) are more likely to be labelled than powerful groups.
• For example, blacks are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than whites and 5 times more likely to be labelled schizophrenic than whites by psychiatrists.

2. Consequences of labelling

• Becker (1963) claims that the extent of deviance is affected by labelling by powerful agencies of social control (societal reaction to deviance).
• He maintains that deviance can be amplified (increased) by the act of labelling itself.
• He argues that the labelled gain a master status e.g. drug addict and that this status/label dominates and shapes how others see the individual (they become stigmatised/’outsiders’).
• Eventually a self-fulfilling prophecy is set into motion.
• Becker suggests that once the deviant label is accepted, deviants may join or form deviant subcultures where their activities can be justified and supported. In this way deviance can become more frequent and often expanded into new areas (a career of deviance).

Question 4

Lemert (1951)

Answer 4

Lemert supports Becker’s ideas on the consequences of labelling.

• Primary deviance which has not been labelled has few consequences for the individual concerned e.g. fare dodging.
• Once deviance is labelled it becomes secondary and affects the individual. Societal reaction leads to stigmatisation, a master status, a self fulfilling prophecy and further deviance.

Question 5

Evaluation of labelling theories

Answer 5

1) Goffman (1968) has shown how the hospitalisation of the mentally ill (societal reaction) leads to mortification, labelling, master status, self-fulfilling prophecies, institutionalisation, amplification and stigma. This suggests there is some validity in the interactionist ideas.
2) Young (1971) found that once hippies in Notting Hill had been labelled for their primary deviance (e.g. occasional marijuana use) they saw themselves as outsiders and developed a deviant subculture that involved wearing more ‘way out’ clothes and longer hair, with drug taking becoming a central activity (deviancy amplification). Police attention increased and self-fulfilling prophecies developed.
3) Triplett (2000) has noted that a zero-tolerance approach (harsh policing and punishments/labelling) to juvenile deviance in the USA has resulted in an increase in offending, especially violent offences. Suggesting that negative labelling does push offenders towards a deviant career.
4) Fuller (1984) has found evidence that labelling theory is too deterministic (assumes things automatically happen). She found negative teacher labelling amongst year 11 black girls. However, she found little evidence of a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. On the contrary the ‘non-conformist’ girls rejected the labelling and used it as a motivator to achieve educational success. This suggests that the validity of subcultural ideas have to be questioned