Labelling Theory: A Program for Dealing with Crime

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

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,

The focus of this paper will be on two contemporary criminological theories and their application to the crime film, Eastern Promises. The two theories to be discussed, and subsequently applied to the film, are labelling theory and differential association theory. Labelling theory falls under the symbolic interactionist approach, and the primary level of analysis of this theory is micro, as it tends to focus on the effect of labels on an individual’s sense of “self”. The basis of labelling theory is that no act is inherently deviant; it is only when the act is labelled deviant that it becomes so. When someone is labelled as deviant, they begin to see themselves as the label they have been assigned. This can cause the behaviour to happen more frequently, as the individual who has been labelled begins to see themselves as they label they have been given. A criticism of labelling theory is that it lacks empirical validity, and is deterministic. There is no way to effectively test this theory, so there is no way to know for sure how accurate the concept of labelling is and the effect it has on an individual and their propensity towards criminality. This and other aspects of labelling theory will be broken down and discussed later on in the paper.

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

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

With the labeling theory sociologists focus on the interaction between both the individual involved and the audience who would evaluate the persons in question behavior. It is based on what society deems as inappropriate or deviant behavior. In Becker’s work he believes that “Labeling theory concentrates less on deviant acts themselves and instead focuses on the actor and the audience and their perceptions of each other”

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

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.

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

We can call a label, or define it as; a mark, name, or even badge.

Labelling theory refers to the ability to attach a label to a person or group of people and in so doing the label becomes more important than the individual. The label becomes the dominant form of identify and takes on ‘Master Status’ (Becker 1963; Lemert 1967) so that the person can no longer be seen other than through the lens of the label. Words, just like labels, are containers of meaning. In this case, the label and the meaning attached to it becomes all that the person is rather than a temporary feature of something that they have done or a way that they have behaved.

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.