Difference Between Labelling And Subculture

The labelling theory shows how crime is socially constructed based on labels created by the powerful, which is important for our understanding of who commits a crime as they show how the powerless can be labelled as deviant whilst powerful groups are not. This undermines the

All societies have rules and regulations as well as penalties for those who violate them. There are numerous theories about the philosophy behind these laws and punishments, and the reasons we implement them. A short analysis of two of these perspectives can shed light on the differences between the various ideas while illustrating that, in reality, each theory carries some validity.

This particular work will consist of a critical theoretical review and a comparative analysis on two criminological theories. For the comparison I have chosen Marx’s theory of crime and Merton’s strain theory of deviance. My critical comparison analysis will emphasise the central concepts and arguments within both theories and how each theory explains crime. The analysis will then explore modern day studies in which have stemmed from these theories as well as explore the many similarities and differences between these two theories. Exploring the strengths and weaknesses in both approaches and concluding that although both theories are

The first theme is labelling and deviant identity theory of criminalisation, one of the main contributors to this theory was Howard Becker who in 1963 wrote the book “Outsiders” which provided the foundations of labelling theory. Becker looked at how social groups created deviance by creating the

In any and every society, there is a level of deviance or crime, no matter how big or small. Deviance is when the norms of a society are disregarded, while crime is when there is a defiance of laws within a society. Individuals who are deviant tend to be nonconforming to the society in which they live, challenging social expectations and deviating from what is considered the norm. Meanwhile, crime is a form of deviance that also discards norms, but in a way that breaks the laws of a certain society or community. When looking at deviance and crime in a micro-level perspective, there are three different theories often used to analyze the reasoning for both in a society. These theories include the Differential Association Theory, the Control Theory and the Labeling Theory. In further dissecting these theories, one can gain a greater insight into the workings of society.

This essay will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of sociological explanations of crimes with links to Durkheim’s anomie theory, Merton’s strain theory and the Labelling theory which will draw upon different academics that will highlight these specific areas of research. In sociological terms, crime is a social concept as it does not exist as an autonomous entity, but it is socially constructed by people. It can be analysed that sociological explanations of crime attribute deviance to various aspects of the social environment. For example, crime is strongly related to modern city life where this type of social environment creates cultural enclaves which results in producing criminal or deviant behaviour (Carrabine et al, 2014).

In Chapter 8, the author discussed the heritage of theory, which is the social and intellectual heritage, its theoretical perspective of labeling theory and the two main concepts that goes with it, which is societal reaction and secondary deviance and their cause and effect. This chapter also defined crime and classified labeling theory as a processual theory. Labeling theory is the theory of recognizing who you are (self-identity) and how individuals’ conduct could be established or swayed by the groups that we categorized them in or how we label them. There are two different theories that help shape the labeling theory that are, the social heritage and the intellectual heritage. The social heritage (events) of labeling theory is the civil

In this essay, the comparison between and contrast between strain theory and labelling theory. The essay will start with the key features of each theory and then it will go into the main comparison of the two theories. It will go into to detail on the similarities and differences between the two theories. Strain theory is the theory developed in 1938 by Robert K Merton. It’s the theory that society puts pressure on people to achieve socially accepted goals. Labelling theory is the theory that the public act in the way that society has labelled them, which gives negative connotations towards that person. Both the theories, judge crime on the type of people and how they have been deemed, both theories try to explain crime from social perspectives.

This includes the practice of stop-and-frisk that is performed by police officers on potential suspects, or anyone for that matter because they can do it unwarranted. Moreover, the result can be innocent youth being interrogated by this means of intervention. Consequently, youth may internalize this label of a potential criminal which raises a key issue of labeling theory that explains future criminality and gang membership. As mentioned in the lecture, labels can be positive that result in a higher self-esteem. In this case, a stop-and-frisk on an innocent youth is a negative label that can not only lower the person's self-esteem, but result in a forced self-realization that they are a deviant. Therefore, government intervention can explain why youth join gangs in the context of labeling theory.

Schmalleger describes the labeling theory or social reaction theory as one that sees persistent criminal behavior as a result of not, having the chances for normal conduct that follow the negative responses of society to those that have been labeled as criminals. There is an expectation of a continuous increase in crime that is a direct effect of the label that is attached. The result of negative labels creates limited chances that the behavior would change on behalf of the criminal, due in part to societies stigma placed upon them (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 186). Those theorists responsible for the labeling theory that are discussed in our readings during this weeks assignments are listed as Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin M. Lemert, Howard Becker, John Braithwaite and others. When discussion the concept labeling, one must understand some of the most early descriptions of societal reactions to deviance, this can be found in the 1938 works of Frank Tannenbaum who explained the term, tagging. Schmalleger defined tagging as the process whereby an individual is negatively defined by the agencies of justice. Within tagging Edwin M. Limert, used the terminology of primary and secondary deviance, primary being a deviant act that was undertaken to achieve some immediate issue and or problem that may have arisen in the person life and doesn’t intend for the criminal behavior to continue. Secondary deviance

Cultural criminology is a branch of critical criminology that focuses on in what way a cultural practice mix with culture as crime, crime as culture; crime control and reality of crime and its construction by media; and exploration of intellectual politics of criminology and social politics of crime and culture (Ferrell, 1999, p. 403). Crime control from perspective of cultural criminology is mainly about having power and applying in practical use on different culture because criminologists suppose culture affects crime and what its aspects are involved. Because a main theme is different beliefs as criminologists suppose and that beliefs in something different gives a meaning to exist for a group of people, and individuals are recognized within

Crime in the light of critical criminology is an obvious outcome of disparities established in a system. Capitalist economic policies result in economic misery among powerless class in society and certain conditions are created in which adapting the criminal behaviors become the only possible survival strategy. Critical criminology follows the Marxist approach in stating that criminal laws are based on the interests of

The central problem was that 'wholesale improvement in social conditions resulted in not a drop in crime but rather the reverse' (Young 1998, p.159). Critical criminology had a significant impact on academic criminology over two decades ago but still remains important and influential today. "The new criminology had a brief period of decline and is now experiencing a resurgence of interest and influence" (Walton & Young 1998). Critical criminologists raise a number of important questions and see crime as a process related to wider economic and political structures of power. They question the way social control operates and is used. They explain crime as a result of the alienation and powerless of the working class, controlled by capitalism.

Some members of delinquent gangs may be the sole carriers of a particular subculture in a particular location, and some are shared. For example conflict subcultures are shared by rival fighting gangs among whom individual and group status involves values related to defense of turf and reputation and norms loyal of these values. Some subcultures oriented to theft and other forms of property crime which they are connected with a particular group. Some property crime involves more organizing and planning in order to succeed. Other crimes such as mugging may involve only one person who shares the same subculture as the larger group. In an article by Terry William’s it states that delinquent subcultures contain elements of both youth and adult cultures. It also stated that to speak of youth culture is to symbolize a subculture of the larger adult-dominated and institutionally defined culture (1989). Many of criminal subculture shares a symbolic relationship with their customs, manly the people

In this essay we shall look at what crime is, what social problems are, and what sociological problems are , how they overlap and we will also look into what sociologists do and look into Robert Merton’s strain theory, and also other sociologists views like William Chambliss’s ‘roughnecks and saints’.