Interactionalist views / Labelling theory Flashcards
Howard Becker (1963)
deviance is defined by those who have power in society as they define right and wrong - crime and deviance are ‘relative’ terms.
According to Becker, whether or not a label successfully applied to a person depends on:
a) HOW the act is interpreted by the audience.
b) WHO exactly commits the act
c) WHEN and where the act is committed
d) WHO observes the act who gets to define it.
Edwin Lemert (1972)
What is the impact of labelling?
focus on the way that society reacts to deviance.
> most people commit crime (exceeding speed limit, keeping too much change in the shop) - most people arent caught for such crimes, so there is not a societal reaction - Lemert calls this ‘primary deviance’
> where a person is caught, labelled and faces a further reaction from societ (what Lemert calls ‘secondary deviance’) the beginnings of a ‘crime problem’ emerges, the following process takes place:
deviant act > deviant labelled > master status > self-fulfilling prophecy > further deviance.
> if it wasnt for society defining certain acts as ‘wrong’ labels would be avoided and ‘crime’ and ‘deviance’ would be low
> avoiding self-fulfilling prophecies in particular help to avoid further criminalisation of people
EVAL - Is Lemert too soft on the criminal - he makes excuses for the criminal which is considered far-fetched.
Jock Young (1971)
Hippy marijuana smoking in the 1960s
Study of deviance in the 1960s to apply main principles of labelling theory.
> ‘primary deviance’ of occasional drug-use among ‘hippies’ was small-scale - once media had caught onto the issue negative reaction created ‘secondary deviance’.
> hippies were given the ‘master status’ of drug abusers, which led to strong reaction by police and public.
> this led to self-fulfilling prophecies of increased drug use as hippies fought back against negative publicity.
> led to a ‘subculture of deviance’ forming
>Young points out negative labelling is the cause of deviance.
EVAL - research is outdated and very old
EVAL - ignores reasons for drug use in the first place, before labelling.
Stan Cohen (1972)
Mods and Rockers
attempts to apply the main ideas behind labelling theory into societal reaction to social disturbances in 1960s.
> by conducting many observations of youth gatherings in seaside reports, he noted:
> minor scuffles that took place were massively exaggerated by the media
> successful labelling of two youth groups in particular - the Mods and the Rockers - led to chain of events that created problems, which had not previously existed…
FOLK DEVIL - youth targeted by media and blamed for disturbances that hadn’t taken place
STEREOTYPES EXAGGERATE POOR BEHAVIOUR - ‘out of control’ , ‘care free’ etc.
MORAL ENTEPRENEURS DEMAND A ‘CRACK DOWN’ - media negativity leads to growing concern among ‘respectable’ groups like the Church, middle class and teachers. Pressure mounted on police to do something about the ‘problem’
SELF FULFILLING PROPHECIES BEGINS TO OCCUR - as young people become aware of media negativity, real differences between the Mods and Rockers emerges, creating real tensions
DEVIANCY AMPLIFICATION - real increases in conflict between the Mods and the Rockers takes place, creating real crime problem when one did not exist previously.
Goffyman (1961)
Asylums
talks about the impact on a person who is labelled as ‘mentally ill’
> the ‘closed’, regimented environment quickly results in ‘mortification on the self’ - this means that they change their original identity and start to see themselves as ‘mentally ill’
> every aspect of their behaviour is defined in terms of the label they’ve been given.
> it becomes a ‘master status’ and makes it difficult for them to re-establish their own identity and live on the outside once more.
Labelling and Social Policy
work of labelling theorists has had a profound impact on government policy - this has been shaped in two main ways:
1)Minimise the use of labels:
> the use of a label to shape and define a person should be avoided at all costs, according to government
> labelling a person for their wrong-doing increases chances of a ‘master status’
EXAMPLE - 2014 UK drugs law - likelihood of cannabis users being criminalised, labelled was reduced, classing cannabis as a “class C drug”
2) Use ‘naming and shaming, to maximise use of labelling:
> following murder of Sarah Payne in August 2000, there were calls to allow parents in the area to know where registered sex offenders lived - this is a step of ‘naming and shaming’
EVAL for ‘naming and shaming’ - can lead to risking the wrong person targeted - for example people in Bristol targeted the wrong person, mistaking them for a paedohphile, this is very dangerous
Evaluation of Labelling Theory
EVAL - Labelling theory is too deterministic - they say once labelled, self-fulfilling prohecy is guarenteed - in reality people can ignore this and a label can motivate them to prove it wrong.
EVAL - puts too much emphasis on the relativity of deviance - sociologists claim deviance is not always socially constructed - such as cold blooded murder which is always wrong! there is no alternative explanation for it
EVAL - fails to explain the cause of deviance -
Aaron Cicourel 1968
- criminal justice system involves subjective interpretations of offenders
- police for example hold stereotypes of “typical crimes”, these typifications lead to selective law enforcement
- successful labelling of people distorts the truth about crime as others negotiate out of trouble
eval - makes link between social class policing and labelling , but fails to explore why relationships exist in the first place
