Labeling Theory Social Psychology : Are Labels Real?

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

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

Labeling theory makes no attempt to understand why an individual initially engaged in primary deviance and committed a crime before they were labeled; this then limits the scope of the theory’s explanations and suggests the theory may not provide a better account for crime. Labeling theory emphasizes the negative effects of labeling, which gives the offender a victim status. Also, the same likelihood exists for developing a criminal career regardless of deviance being primary or secondary. Furthermore, labeling theorists are only interested in understanding the aftermath of an individual getting caught committing crime and society attaching a label to the offender. This differs from the view of social learning theory, which seeks to explain the first and subsequent criminal acts. Many critics also argue that the racial, social, and economic statuses of an individual create labels, as opposed to criminal acts; this theory then fails to acknowledge that those statuses may factor into the labeling process. As a result, the above suggests that labeling theory does not provide a good account for crime and appropriately has little empirical support. Moreover, in terms of policy implications, labeling theory implies a policy of radical non-intervention, where minor offenses

Gove argued that there are two consequences of labelling: creation of sigma, modification of self images. Stigma is the negative branding of an individual and refers to the public condemnation and exclusion of the criminal. The media tend to exaggerate the behaviour of such people, causing increased fear and moral panic in society, resulting in avoidance and constantly being treated with suspicion. Becker refers to a ‘master status’ where once a person is labelled all of their actions are interpreted in light of the label and only negative aspects of that individual’s behaviour are focussed on.

Individuals who experience stigmas experience of moving through life with an attribute that is deeply discrediting. Stigmatizing shaming is whenever a criminal is labeled as a threat to society and is treated as an outcast. The labeling process and society’s effort to marginalized the individual reinforce the individual’s criminal conduct and perhaps influence to future criminal behavior and higher crime rates (Textbook 155). People who represent law and order or who impose definitions of morality on others do most of the labeling. Thus the rules by which deviance is defined express the power structure of society; such rules are framed by the wealthy for the poor, by men for women, by older people for younger people, and by ethnic majorities for minority groups. For example, many children wander into other people’s gardens, steal fruit, or skip school. In a wealthy neighborhood, parents, teachers, and police might regard such activities as relatively innocent and the children are let off with a slap on the hand and not stigmatized. However when such acts are committed by children in poor areas, such as in Oakland, California, they are considered acts of juvenile delinquency. Once these boys are labeled as a delinquent, teachers and prospective employers are more than likely to deem them to be untrustworthy. The boys then relapse into further criminal behavior, widening the gulf between

Schur (1980, 1984) who “described labeling as a social construction of culture, which means that it is artificially defined by society. This indicates that proper concepts will be destitute in the face of ever-changing eccentricity of social standards” (Hashem, 2015:121). Society dictates what is and what is not considered “deviant” behavior, and treats the person accordingly (whether positive or negative. Labeling tends to lead to stigmatization. Noelle Vance wrote in her article titled Labeling Theory that “When relationships with parents, teachers, or friends are weakened as a result of formal stigmatization, individuals are more likely to seek affiliation with criminal

Leslie’s mental disability was stigmatized, therefore, as Alexander Liazos explained, “The people we call deviant–those we dismiss as “nuts” and “sluts”–are typically powerless (Macionis & Gerber 215). Since she had low social status and little power in her community, it made her at risk of a deviant label. Rather than condemning every jock who was present the night of the rape, the community chose to discredit Leslie, especially within the criminal justice system, and socially isolate her. In contrast to the macro-level theory, labelling theory offers a micro-level analysis of

A label defines an individual as a certain kind of person. Defining an act as deviant or criminal is not a simple straight forward process. A label is not neutral, it contains an evaluation of the person to whom it is applied. It is a ‘Master Status’ in the sense that it overshadows all the other statuses possessed by the individual. If an individual is labelled as criminal, mentally ill or gay, such labels tend to override the individuals status as father, husband, worker, friend or neighbour. Whether or not the label is applied will depend on how the act is interpreted by the audience. This in turn will depend on who commits the act and where and when it was committed.

When this label is attached and internalized the individual’s actions will become influenced by the label and further deviance can be produced as a result as the individual is going to think that it is expected of them. It is also possible that when these labels are attached and internalized that these deviants will be pushed to the outskirts of society and it is here that they may begin to associate with others who may have similar

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.

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

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

Seheff (1984) upheld this view by suggesting that stigmatising a person will often mean that a retrospective labelling takes place via the interpretation of someone’s past being consistent with their present and future self.

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.

Labeling theory helps us understand the social responses and reactions from the community, and as illustrated in the opening comments, the Mercer brothers’ history of criminal behavior and activities. Labeling theory is an approach of explaining that the self-identity and behavior of individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used when societies describe or classify individuals without further