Labelling Theory and Symbolic Interactionism indepth

Question 1

What does Labelling Theory criticise about pathological theories?

Answer 1

Believes that people are not compelled to commit crimes outside of their control; earlier criminological theories denied the authenticity of the deviant’s own account of their behaviour.
Instead symbolic interactionism emphasises the subjective purposes and meanings of individuals

Question 2

What are ‘meanings’ and how do they arise?

Answer 2

Meanings - how someone understands their world/interactions - arise from the subjective aspects of social life. MESO level.
Meanings arise in context-specific situations and interact based on these meanings. Modification of meanings occurs through an interpretative process of social interactions. Thus deviance is not inherent but something is considered deviant through a process of interactions which label it as deviant

As opposed to earlier structural theorists like Durkheim or individual pathological explanations

Question 3

How do they define deviance?

Answer 3

Not inherent - something is considered deviant through a process of interactions which label it as deviant
Crime is not based on moral absolutes that we all inherently know - it is in the eye of the beholder and the application of processes leaving to deviance. Thus we must consider who makes laws, as well as those who break them.

Question 4

What is their understanding of human behaviour?

Answer 4

NOT deterministic; people have a role to play in generating meanings and can negotiate and exercise agency in negotiating these meanings

Question 5

How can social processes changed?

Answer 5

changeable, continually readjusting social processes through micro processes of interactions. Meanings are not fixed - we all have a role to play in generating societal meanings. However, attachment of meaning does not occur in structural flux: we are schooled to act and respond within existing social meanings – and therefore all constructed meanings are not always validated or legitimated – as potentially diverse symbolic meanings co-exist

Question 6

How do we understand how deviance emerges?

Answer 6

Getting the subjective view of meanings from the deviant actor themselves.
We need to know:
- Motivation to commit behaviour eligible for definition
- perception of behaviour eligible for definition
- structural opportunity to commit behaviour eligible for definition of deviance

Question 7

What do we need to know about the audience?

Answer 7

relative power, motivation, and structural opportunity to successfully define crime and bring sanctions upon the actors of these behaviours

Question 8

Tenets of symbolic interactionism - George Mead

Answer 8

1. the dependency on social exchange for the development of self: individuals lack a strong sense of self/identity; self is constantly constructed and reconstructed through interactions. Thus application of deviant labels is problematic as can change individuals perception of self - thus amplification of deviance
2. No behaviour is inherently criminal - conferred on by audience. Social constructionist approach to deviance
3. Rejected explanations which emphasised characteristics of the deviant actor; emphasising response of society to the act and how this reaction affects the deviant (not an inherent characteristic of the actor)

Question 9

Frank Tannenbaum (1938) key ideas

Answer 9

Founding father of labelling theory - considering labels
A majority of people commit deviant acts but only a few are considered deviant as they are caught and labelled; this leads to isolation and internalisation of the deviant tag (process of separation)
People become deviant because of the imposition of social judgements - will redefine their identity and come to redefine themselves as criminal
‘Dramatization of Evil’ hypothesis: first acts are defined as deviant, and then the actor as deviant too

Question 10

Tannenbaum (1938) process of separation

Answer 10

actor is separated from the community, leading to isolation, confirmation and internalisation of the deviant tag by the individual
Early idea of self fulfilling prophecy leading to deviancy amplification

Question 11

Lemert (1951) key ideas

Answer 11

Primary/secondary deviance introduction
Ubiquitous crime - most people commit crime - but most people do not get caught and labelled, thus their self-image is not effected
Rather than crime leading to control by the agencies of social control (such as the police/court etc); social control agents structure and generate crime (rather than control them)
Secondary deviance creates identity crisis due to being labelled - can solve this crisis by adopting deviant status as a master status, resulting in social exclusion and replacement of other identities - may seek our people who have been similarly labelled thus leading to subcultural deviant groups

Question 12

Howard Becker (1963)

Answer 12

Deviance as socially and culturally dependent
Power is central in determining who is defined as deviant
For example drug subcultures are defined by sanctions - led to emergence of distinctive subcultures; individuals can only continue to use drugs when they replace external with ‘internal’ views through experiences gained in subcultures
Subculutres lead to development of deviant career

Question 13

Wilkins (1964)

Answer 13

deviancy appreciation becomes incorporated into self-image - paradoxically, reaction by control agencies influences frequency and amount of deviance. Others may also be attracted to this image of deviance.

Question 14

Cohen (1980)

Answer 14

Deviancy amplification spiral