The effects of labelling

Question 1

Lemert (1951)

Answer 1

Primary deviance:
-Widespread minor crime which happens daily e.g. fare dodging
Secondary deviance:
-Serious crime which is a result of societies reaction
-Being caught, publicly shamed, shunned, and stigmatised
-Develop a master status as a result where, once an individual is labelled, others may begin to ONLY view them in that way
-Can lead to a crisis of self-concept–> begin to accept the label–> self-fulfilling prophecy, where the individual acts out that label

Question 2

Deviant career

Answer 2

-Secondary deviance is likely to provoke hostile reactions from society which reinforce the ‘outsider’ status.
-Will seek other outsiders for support + may join a deviant subculture which offers opportunities and rewards such deviant behaviour, confirming their deviant identity

Question 3

Young (1971)

Answer 3

-Study of hippy marijuana smokers in Notting Hill
-Found that the persecution and labelling by the police led to the hippies seeing themselves as outsiders
-Resulted in them retreating into closed groups where they went to extreme lengths
-The police attempt at reducing crime made it worse

Question 4

Eval of Lemert and Young

Answer 4

-Doesn’t tell us why people commit crime
-Downes and Rock (2003)- we can’t predict whether or not someone who has been labelled will go into a deviant career as they are free to not deviate further

Question 5

Deviance amplification spiral

Answer 5

Cohen (1972):
-Study of societies reaction to the ‘mods and rockers’
-Found that media exaggeration created moral panic with society placing pressure to stop the issue
-Made those involved feel the need to act up infront of cameras
-Police responded by arresting more youths + the media prolonged the panic until it stopped selling

Question 6

Folk Devils

Answer 6

-Those whose actions are over-exaggerated by the public, media and police
-Pursuit of folk devils draws away resources the police should be using to detecting and punishing the crimes that make up the dark figure of crime

Question 7

Braithwaite (1989)`

Answer 7

Disintegrative shaming- where both the crime AND the criminal are labelled as bad and are excluded from society. Leads to master status and reoffending
Re-integrative shaming- the act is labelled as bad BUT not the person committing the act. Reduces reoffending rates
-This avoids stigmatisation of the offender, while making them aware of the negative affect their actions have BUT also encourages other to forgive them e.g. in Switzerland, Norway