The Social 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

Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory draws on traditional criminological theories such as labelling, subcultural, opportunity, control, differential association and social learning theories (Braithwaite, 1989). John Braithwaite first put forward his theory of reintegrative shaming in his book, Crime, Shame

The “looking-glass self” clearly explains how deviant behavior arises among juveniles. Under this concept, the social self is seen as the image that one internalizes out of how others define him or her (Winters, Globokar, & Roberson, 2014). The society is thus like a mirror or the ‘looking glass’ through which one sees the self. According to the proponents of the labeling theory, the ‘looking glass’ have a significant impact on one’s behavior. For instance, when a person construes that other seem him/her as lazy, that person will likely act lazy in order to fulfill the ascription. This is the same as self-fulfilling. In line with this concept, when youths face arrests, they are kept with other criminals and are labeled criminals. This gives the particular youth different experiences. The youth may develop new friendships while in prison or join gangs. While the youth leaves prison, he/she is likely to continue with criminal behavior.

In her article, “Condemn the Crime, Not the Person,” June Tangney argues that shaming causes more harm than good. She focuses on alternatives to traditional sentences instead of shaming and incarceration. As a more recent trend, officials are using shaming sentences more and more. Tangney states that it is important to know the distinction between shame and guilt. Tangney states, that research has shown feeling of guilt “involve a sense of tension and regret over the bad thing done.” Guilt makes people feel bad. It makes them want to change their behavior whereas shame does not motivate people to feel better and they are less likely to stop their wrong behavior (577). She also states that scientific evidence suggested publicly shaming a person makes a problem instead of creating a constructive change in them and individuals may hide and escape the shameful feelings and try to blame others (577). In conclusion, Tangney suggest community service as a sentence for offenders to pay their debt to society for their wrongdoing, been linked to the crime they did. Her tone is informative and innovative and keeps the reader interested while reading. However, this article displays weakness in term of the evidence the author presents, it is one sided and does not provide evidence her suggestion for community service as a sentence option works. Therefore, it fails to persuade the reader.

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

Restorative justice is an innovative approach to the criminal justice system that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crimes committed. The methods used in the conventional justice system may deter the offender from committing further crimes, but it does neither repair the harm caused, nor help them acknowledge their responsibility, instead it stigmatises them, worsening the situation instead of improving it (Johnstone 2003). “Stigmatisation is the kind of shaming that creates outcasts; it is disrespectful, humiliating” (p.85). It breaks the moral bonds between offender and community and can result in the creation of a destructive cycle that may result in fear and isolation. The shaming by stigmatisation creates a negative effect which

When we hear shaming our minds quickly go to someone being embarrassed and humanized for their past actions. In public view for people to create judgments and uncertainty about a behavior seen from a certain person. This description falls under the common form of shaming known as stigmatization, found in our criminal system stigmatization is disrespectful shaming, “where the offender is treated as a bad person. The offender is left with that stigma permanently” (Braithwaite, 2000, 282) due to the forgivingness found in this form of shaming. Stigmatization shaming only tends to bring more shame than a resolution so crime tends to increase the crimes because the offender feels like there no way out, so I might as well

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

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.

‘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

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