Howard Slater Three Spheres Summary

The labeling theory, an example of constructivist perspective is the theory put forth to define how deviance is experienced and why people continue to be deviant. The labeling theory was developed by a group of sociologists in the 1960’s. It is a version of symbolic interactionism defining deviance as a collective action involving the acts of more than one person, and the

Under Edwin Lemert’s labeling theory the individual facilitates and impact’s their label. The process starts with deviation, sanctions for those behaviors by others, decision from the individual to imbed the label or challenge it, the individual then gets more reaction for their action from other and finally the individual chooses to accept the label and consistently acts within it. Primary deviance takes place when the individual engages in the initial act of defiance. In Lemert’s term, such acts under traditional labeling theory are examples of primary deviance and they occur in wide segments of the population. We all transgress now and then: some youth shoplift, others commit vandalism, and still others use illegal drugs. But suppose a youth, say a 15 year-old male, is caught vandalizing or using an illegal drug, His arrest, fingerprinting, and other legal measures make him think of himself as a young criminal. Parents, friends,

Labeling theory is the view that society creates deviance through a system of social control organizations that label certain people as a delinquent or even juvenile delinquent. An example of someone being highly labeled would be John Bender. John was the criminal student who smoked, skipped school, and broke all the rules. John experienced labeling theory, ultimately by his dad as being a lazy free loader and by the principal as being the worst kid at the school. To compare, he also went through the strain theory stage, the stage when society puts peer pressure on an individual caused by the failure to achieves one’s social goals. John was labeled by his peers, father, and even principle as someone who did not care about the rules in school or succeeding in life. However, he had his own self-label where he accepted the fact that he was a trouble maker. Furthermore, an example in the movie is when he felt he was treated unfairly by the principle so, to get revenge he would leave the classroom and wandering the halls to make the teacher come find him and the students. With John demonstrating being the bad influence on his classmates, he puts peer pressure on all the rest of the students to display deviant behavior.

Labeling theory holds that individuals come to identify and act as per their labels. The major tenet of this theory is that the behavior and self-identity of individuals is affected by the way they are described by other people (Vold, Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2016). According to this theory, the act of deviance is not implicit in a particular act, but is hedged on the inclination of the majority to ascribe labels to minorities in society who deviate from standard behavior. Labeling leads to dramatization of a particular act – which propagates the behavioral clash between the individual and the community. Through ascribing labels, the individuals acquire a negative self-image. The individuals accept themselves as labeled by the

Under labeling theory, criminal behavior is based on the state stamping the behavior as criminal, instead of criminal behavior being based on the harm that it causes. Thereafter, labels are influenced by society’s reactions. Lemert formulated this theory with emphasis on the importance of identity. He developed two types of deviance, primary and

The first sociological concept or principle that is seen in The Breakfast Club is the idea of the labeling theory. The labeling theory is an approach to the study of deviance that suggests that people become “deviant” because certain labels are attached to their behavior by political authorities and others. For example Claire

Some sociologists believe that the cause of crime and deviance is labelling which is when a label is attached to a person or group of people due to their appearance, sex, ethnicity etc. Labelling theory argues that once this label has been attached it can create a self fulfilling prophecy, which is when the person begins to act according to the label and hence it comes true simply through being made. Labelling is similar to stereotyping but this is when a person assigns certain characteristics to a labelled group. An example to support this would be 9/11. Since this disaster people label Muslims as being terrorists

Once a person is labelled as a deviant, it is hard to remove that label. The Labeling Theory basically says that no behavior is deeply rooted on its own. It is society’s reaction to the behavior that makes the act deviant or not. Labeling is to give someone or something to a category and is usually given mistakenly. The people who usually doing the labeling have statues, numbers, power and authority. People with low status, power and authority are the ones that are being labeled.

Interactionism was quite popular from 1960s to 1970s. Max Weber and George Herbert Mead favour the Interactionist approach and suggest that crime is a social process, that crime is an interaction between the victim, the police/officials and the offender. Crime is shaped by the nature of this interaction and this selective labelling, stigmatisation, negative labelling of those without power and more vulnerable. This approach focuses upon the interaction between deviance and those who define it as such, hence the Labelling Theory. Howard F Becker, the founder of this theory, argues that society creates deviance by making rules. Rules that when broken, constitute deviance, and by labelling those particular people as deviants, they are also labelling them as outsiders.

This led to Becker to suggest that deviancy was the consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions directed at an offender: the deviant was a person ‘to whom that label successfully been applied, deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label’ (Becker, 1963:9)

Associating with the self-fulfilling prophecy, master status, and symbolic interactionism, Howard Becker’s labeling theory, views deviance as not an innate act, but rather, elects to target society impulse to engage in stigmatization (Cartwright, 2011). In this paper, I will discuss the implications of labeling specifically in the articles “The Saints and the Roughnecks” by William Chambliss and “On Being Sane In Insane Places” by David Rosenhan. Additionally, I will be discussing the far-reaching effects of negative labeling an individual, with respect to concepts such as labeling theory, the self-fulfilling prophecy, and master status.

‘Labelling theory is the view of deviance according to which being labelled as a “deviant” leads a person to engage in deviant behaviour.’ This states that if a person were to labelled as a thief, that person would be treated different (looked down upon). This could leave this person to do what they are labelled as and commit theft. This is backed up with study.com’s definition of labelling theory, which states ‘people become criminals when labelled as such and when they accept the label as personal identity’. This moves into strain theory as the strain theory cultural theory as in Merton’s strain theory argues that ‘the American cultural

Based on Howard Becker’s symbolic or labeling theory, all acts of deviance and the person seen to be acting in a deviant manner are given labels. These labels generally come from someone in there community or group who are in hierarchy or authority figure. That means no action is deviant unless specified by the particular community or group (Bessant & Watts 2002). Becker’s labeling theory concentrates on the lower class, and anything apart from what the group expects is labeled as deviant. The term Once a criminal always a criminal is familiar, it is these type of labels that maybe detrimental in terms of a person internalizing labels as truth, and how others sees them (D. Conley 2008). The labels and or judgments given negatively, isolate the person from the group, and may hinder the person’s opportunity to reach their full potential. The strains put on a person to conform to the particular cultures norms and values, does not allow any person to differ in nature or thought. When one is pressured to perform in ways that may be foreign or

Deviance is socially constructed because it is defined and outlined firmly by society’s norms. As a result, a deviant act in one society may not be considered deviant within a different society. Societies define themselves through the shared common values of the individuals and in order for a society to maintain these values and cultural identity they create and maintain boundaries (Erikson, 2005, p17). These boundaries allow individuals to relate to each other in an articulate manner and so that they may develop a position within society (Erikson, 2005, p17). The boundaries are created by individuals’ behavior and interactions in their regular social relations. Deviance then becomes the actions which society perceived to be outside of its boundaries. In other words, an act is viewed as deviant when it falls outside of those commonly shared values and norms which created the boundaries. This is because the society is making a declaration about the disposition and arrangement of their boundaries. Boundaries are not fixed to any society rather they shift as the individual’s redefine their margins and position on a larger cultural map (Erikson, 2005, p20).

Labeling theorists suggest that labeling individuals as deviant has the potential of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy (Globokar, 2008). Howard Becker has described deviance as a “consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’; the deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior people so label” (Clinard & Meier, 2011:89). Culture, sex, age and other elements of identity all shape self-conception, but the meanings that an individual places on various circumstances and interactions certainly play a very important role as well.