Taking a Look at the Labeling Theory

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 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

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.

‘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

“Labeling theory is based on the idea that behaviors are deviant only when society labels them as deviant” (Crossman). The effect of being labeled as deviant can have two results, where some people change their ways of behavior while others get more involved into deviant acts. For example, when a coach is dealing with an athlete who is labeled as a “failure” by other athletes, the coach will not be surprised when the athlete does badly on a match. Indeed, the coach will be surprised if the athlete does well. Once a person is labeled as deviant, then the label stays with their identity for the rest of their

"Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders-deviance is not a quality of the act of a person commits, but rather a consequences of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an 'offender' The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied. Deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label."

After reading the article or journal, I have to say that in my opinion, I somewhat agree and also have a reason to question the labeling theory. Yes, I agree that a crime worth being brought to the law enforcers would get an offender judged by criticizing whether in the court of law and within our society, but labeling to me sure make it sound more like one has been scientifically, psychological probed and stamped in a not so desirable way that could follow the person for the rest for the life. I’m not disputing the fact that some crimes are without a doubt qualified to be labeled; however, not all offenses should fall under the different arrays of umbrella of being labelled.

The labeling theory explains that deviant behaviors are determine by the way people react. According to the labeling theory an action is not considered deviant until people react to the situation. The conflict theory and labeling theory are linked because both theories are based on the power of others. The conflict theory points out that deviant behavior is decide by the dominant group. The group with power establishes what actions are deviant and their consequences. An example of the labeling theory and the conflict theory combined is a prisoner being released from prison. Going to prison is a deviant action, and after serving time and being released, the person is still labeled deviant. Due to the opinion of the dominant group prisoners

Labeling theories also known as social reaction theory tries to explain how labeling a person can actually cause them to participate in more criminal behavior (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 173). They believe that by labeling someone a criminal, crime starts to become self-filling, and they may start to get involved in more dangerous criminal behavior (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 174). Lemert proposed that primary deviance is when an individual (usually youth) first commit a non-violent crime and gets caught and labeled as a criminal they will commit secondary deviance (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 175). Secondary deviance is more serious criminal behavior, usually violent, that occurs more often than primary deviance (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 175). More recent research believes that labels given to an individual by family, friends, and community will have stronger effects on criminal behavior (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 175).

One theory that could explain the reoccurring of this crime is the looking glass theory. This concept is a psychological perception of one self and how they perceive themselves under societies observations and expectations. Charles Horton Cooley firstly created this theory, in 1902. This theory relates to Nigel’s situation because this can be applied at a young age and allow for the individual to believe their identify is a ‘criminal’ due to the perceptions of society. This can also draw back to his families history, for instant his father being named a criminal, can allow for Nigel to believe he is no better.

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.