Week 6; Constructionist Theories Flashcards
The Rise and Fall of Labelling Theories
- Other sociological theories, the labelling/social reaction perspectives reject using the offender as the starting point in their analysis
○ Rather, these theories focus on the behaviour of those who label, react to, and otherwise seek to control offenders
○ These social control efforts are what trigger the processes that trap individuals in a criminal career (Self-fulfilling prophecy)- In the 1960s, based on the work of Lemert and Tannenbaum, criminologists focused on social reaction, not the offender
What were the three main issues in the work of Lemert and Tannenbaum?
- Asked why certain behaviours were labelled crime and others were not and how definitions change over time
- Asked why everyone who broke the law was not detected and designated criminal
- Howard Becker argued “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance” and applying those rules to particular people - Asked what the consequences of being labelled were
- Self-fulfilling prophecy
- Becomes a master status
- Asked why everyone who broke the law was not detected and designated criminal
What is crime?
Crime is not a behaviour, but how we respond to behaviour
- social groups create deviance by making rules
- moral entrepreneurs (Becker) work to have their ideas about deviance enshrined in law
What do labelling theorists argue about labelling theory?
- Drawing on the sociological theory of symbolic interactionism, labelling theorists argue a person’s identity is shaped by the messages other people deliver as to who the person is
○ Over time, people begin to embrace the label, which shapes their behaviour- Labeling also shapes a persons social relationships
○ Once stigmatized as a criminal, the person loses conventional relationships and is forced to associate mainly with other criminals
○ Also is denied opportunities (e.g. Employment) in conventional society
- Labeling also shapes a persons social relationships
Early Criminologist and Creating a Criminal
Early criminologists recognized that placing people in prison, or “houses of corruption,” could deepen involvement in crime
What is the “dramatization of evil?”
- Tannenbaum discussed the “dramatization of evil”
○ Argued “a decisive step in the education of the criminal” is being arrested and having the criminal status held up for public scrutiny
- Thus, criminals are made when they are defined as such
What did Tannenbaum argue about being labelled criminal?
- Tannenbaum argued that being arrested and labelled as criminal forced the person to:
○ Associate with others defined as criminal
§ Leads to the exposure of criminal values
○ Think of themself as a criminal and thus begin to act as a criminal- Tannenbaum argued the best policy in dealing with juvenile delinquents is to not dramatize or draw attention to the crime
○ Radical non intervention
- Tannenbaum argued the best policy in dealing with juvenile delinquents is to not dramatize or draw attention to the crime
What did Edwin Lemert Discuss?
Edwin Lemert discussed primary and secondary deviance
What is Primary Deviance?
○ Primary deviance occurs for a wide range of reasons, some individual and some situational
§ Peripheral to the persons identity so does not influence how the person views himself
§ Rationalized and dealt with as functions of a socially acceptable role
What is Secondary Deviance?
- Secondary deviance occurs when the individual no longer dissociates from his or her deviation
○ His or her “life and identity are organized around the facts of deviance”
○ A key factor prompting a person’s life to coalesce around deviance is the reactions of others
§ Gradual process of a cycle of deviations and negative reactions is repeated and amplified
§ Person eventually accepts his or her deviant status
- Make life choices that are constrained by and reaffirm their deviant status
What year and why did labelling theory grow in popularity?
1960s
- interesting theory
- critiqued the state’s power
Why did labelling theory fall out of popularity?
○ Empirically weak
§ Argued societal reaction as the key to the stability of criminal behaviour; however, research has shown that stability occurs early in the life course before formal interventions
§ Does not recognize the impact of criminogenic environments (eg., dysfunctional family, failing at school, antisocial associates)
What was the ‘Chambliss’ Saints and Roughneck study?”
- 1973
- Ethnographic study of two groups of high school boys
○ Saints and Roughnecks- Similar amount of wayward behaviour labelled differently
○ Saints not labelled criminals and escaped life of crime
○ Roughnecks were labeled criminal and often continued criminal trajectory - Impact of class status
- Similar amount of wayward behaviour labelled differently
What were characteristics of the Saints?
- Upper middle class white boys
- None arrested during study; seen as less serious; sowing oats
- Drink heavily; get high; harass girls; vandalize/destruct property; pranks; less visible to home community (cars)
- in school highly successful; popular; held class offices; won awards; cheat; given benefit of doubt by school
- police were convinced boys were good; did not arrest
- their adult careers most successful conventional society
- conventional behaviour internalized
What were characteristics of Roughnecks?
- Lower-class white boys
- Constantly in trouble; labelled hang members/troublemakers; seen as dangerous
- Drinking is limited to gang members; theft common; more visible to home communities
- in school seen as headed for trouble; incapable of meeting academic standards; teachers passed despite poor performance
- police often arrested; sporadically harassed by police
- careers some successful; others involved in crime
- Delinquent identity internalized
