Labelling Theory
Deviance, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. There is nothing
inherently deviant in any human act, something is deviant only because some
people have been successful in labelling it so.
J. L Simmons
The
definition of the situation implies that if you define a situation as real, it
is real only in its consequences.
INTRODUCTION
Labelling theory,
stemming from the influences of Cooley, Mead, Tannenbaum, and Lemert, has its
origins somewhere within the context of the twentieth century. However, Edwin
Lemert is widely considered the producer and founder of the original version of
labelling theory. This paper, not a summary, provides a brief history of
labelling theory, as well as, its role in the sociology of deviance. It attempts
to explore the contributions made by labelling theorists, the criticism towards
labelling theorists, and the discussion surrounding its reality as an actual
theory. In essence, the main focus of this paper besides proving an
understanding of Howard Becker, is to describe and evaluate `labelling theory`
to the study of crime and deviance, by way of an in depth
discussion.
THEORETICAL IMAGES
The theoretical study of societal
reaction to deviance has been carried out under different names, such as,
labelling theory, interactionist perspective, and the social constructionist
perspective. In the sociology of deviance, the labelling theory of deviant
behaviour is often used interchangeably with the societal reaction theory of
deviancy. As a matter of fact, both phrases point equally to the fact that
sociological explanations of deviance function as a product of social control
rather than a product of psychology or genetic inheritance. Some sociologists
would explain deviance by accepting without question definitions of deviance and
concerning themselves with primary aetiology. However, labelling theorists
stress the point of seeing deviance from the viewpoint of the deviant
individual. They claim that when a person becomes known as a deviant, and is
ascribed deviant behaviour patterns, it is as much, if not more, to do with the
way they have been stigmatized, then the deviant act they are said to have
committed. In addition, Howard S. Becker (1963), one of the earlier interaction
theorists, claimed that, 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. Furthermore, the labelling theoretical approach
to deviance concentrates on the social reaction to deviance committed by
individuals, as well as, the interaction processes leading up to the
labelling.
INFLUENCES
Labelling theory was significantly
influenced by the Chicago School and Symbolic Interactionism. The sociology
department in the University of Chicago is where early labelling theorists
received their graduate training. These theorists were trained in terms of
symbolic interaction and specific methods of participatory field research. The
symbolic interaction theory exposed early theorists to the study of social
interaction, as well as, the interpretation of society from the actor's point of
view. Everett Hughes and Alvin Gouldner were two of the earliest theorists to
train at the Chicago School. However, the foundations of this view of deviance
were said to have been first established by Edwin Lemert (1951) and were
subsequently developed by Howard S. Becker (1963). As a matter of fact,
labelling theory has subsequently become a dominant paradigm in the explanation
of deviance. Furthermore, the symbolic interaction perspective was extremely
active in the early foundations of labelling theory.
Labelling theory is
constituted essentially by two propositions. The first is that deviant behaviour
is to be seen not simply as the violation of a norm, but as any behaviour which
is successfully defined or labelled as deviant. The deviance does not inhere in
the act itself but in the response of others to that act. In other words, the
deviance is said to be in the eye of the beholder. The second proposition claims
that labelling produces or amplifies deviance. The deviant's response to
societal reaction leads to secondary deviation by which the deviant comes to
accept a self-image or self-definition as someone who is permanently locked
within a deviant role. Furthermore, the distinctiveness of the approach is that
it draws attention to deviance as the outcome of social imputations and the
exercise of social control.
Labelling theory is very complex, making it
quite different than other theories. Instead of looking at why some social
groups commit more crime, labelling theory asks why some people committing some
action come to be defined as deviant, while others do not. Labelling theory is
also interested in the effect of labelling individuals. As well, labelling
theorists note that most people commit crimes at some time in their lives but
not everyone becomes defined as deviant or criminal. How does this process of
defining a person as deviant work? Look at a situation where a policeman holds
stereotypes about typical criminals. They use these stereotypes to interpret the
behaviour of suspected deviants. In other words, the closer a person comes to
the stereotype held by the police, the more likely they are to be arrested,
charged, and convicted of the crime. Furthermore, once someone has been
successfully labelled or stigmatized as criminal or deviant, the label attached
may become the dominant label.
MASTER STATUS
In labelling theory,
the dominant label is most often referred to as the master status. The master
status is the attached label that is normally seen as a characteristic of more
importance than all other aspects of the person. For example, he or she becomes
a hooligan or thief rather than a father, mother or friend. Each label carries
with it something. For some people once a deviant label has been applied, in
terms of a deviant self-concept, they accept themselves as a deviant, however,
this can only make room for further deviant acts to be made. This happens when
people start acting in the way they have been labelled. For example, a man
caught in an isolated act of stealing may be convicted, sent to prison, labelled
as a criminal, and later as an ex-con. Friends will most likely not want to
associate with him and employers will not employ him due to his criminal record.
In other words, the man is stigmatized as a general deviant and as a
consequence, he is excluded from all conventional associations and contacts. As
well, this type of situation makes it very difficult for the man to maintain the
identity of a non-deviant person. As a result, the man may begin to see himself
primarily as a criminal, especially as he now knows many other so-called ex-cons
from his time in prison. Since everyone treats him as a criminal anyway and he
can't get a job, he may then turn to crime as a way of life, perhaps with the
aid of the deviant subculture in which he probably made connections with.
Furthermore, if this happens, although he may not have had any other choice,
nevertheless, he has now embarked on a deviant career.
DEVIANT
CAREER
The concept of a deviant career refers to a sequence of stages
through which the rule-breaker may evolve into a full-fledged deviant or
outsider (Becker, 1963). According to Becker, after the individual has been
labelled as deviant, they progress down the path of a deviant career and it
becomes hard to shake off the deviant label as others see it as a master status
of the individual. He points out that when studying deviant people one should
not take their deviance for granted, as one cannot assume that these people have
actually committed a deviant act or broken some rule, because the process of
labelling theory may not be infallible. In other words, to be labelled deviant
does not necessarily mean that the individual is, or has been deviant in the
past. In addition, Kai T. Erikson (1966) also highlights the way social reaction
affects the deviant individual. He reinforces what Becker had previously
suggested saying that deviance is not a property inherent in certain forms of
behaviour, it is a property conferred upon these forms by the audiences which
directly or indirectly witness them (Erikson,1966). He suggests that deviance is
necessary to society's stability, rather than being responsible for its
breakdown, as the deviant individual serves as a marker of the difference
between good and evil, right and wrong, and as Erikson writes, in doing so, he
shows us the difference between the inside of the group and the outside. He goes
on to bring forward the question of whether or not the labelling of deviant
individuals is necessary in holding society together. As well, is it fair to say
that in order to perpetuate this, societies are organised in such a way as to
promote this resource. In other words, is it possible that the procedure of
creating deviant individuals, although unfair, must continue, as scapegoats are
necessary for the moral safety of the rest of society?
NEGATIVE
LABELLING
Aaron V. Cicourel (1968), explains the treatment of delinquents
in two similar Californian cities by using labelling theory. He claims that a
difference in juvenile justice can be accounted for by different policies of the
police, and by the ability of middle class parents to negotiate justice. He
concludes by stating that some individuals are more likely than others to be
labelled as deviant, due to their status in life. This theory was reinforced by
E. M. Schur(1971), who discusses the drug addiction of many doctors, or the
likelihood of bank tellers to misappropriate funds. Schur suggests that in both
cases the actor has legitimate access to drugs or money, which gives them some
protection against being discovered, as opposed to the case of an addict buying
drugs on the street, or an armed robber holding up the bank. He suggests that
resistance to negative labelling is built into ‘opportunity' (1971). Schur
claims that opportunity structures may determine initial deviation, but societal
reactions to such deviation will significantly determine future opportunities.
However, labelling theorists have had their work criticised on many levels, and
these criticisms must be examined before any evaluation of the contribution of
the labelling theorists to the sociology of deviance can be
made.
CRITICISM
Becker examines some of the criticisms and feels
that labelling theory was created as a way of looking at a general area of human
activity (1963). However, it is not a theory, with all the achievements and
obligations that go with the title, nor is it focussed exclusively on the act of
labelling as some have thought. Moreover, Becker does mention some of the
criticisms given to labelling theory. For example, he states how interactionist
theories have been accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, be the enemy
those who would upset the stability of the existing order of the Establishment.
In essence, we have already mentioned the suggestion of Erikson that deviance is
a necessary part of society, showing the difference between right and wrong, and
encouraging the majority of society to toe the line at the expense of the
deviant minority. A further criticism mentioned by Becker is that given by many
conservative critics (although other non-conservative critics have also noted
this) that is, that interactionist theories of deviance openly or covertly
attack conventional morality. Becker acknowledges this, suggesting that
intentionally or otherwise, they are corrosive of conventional modes of thought
and established institutions. Becker (1967) goes as far as to say that the
labelling theorist must side with the deviator, as it is up to the sociologists
to remedy unfair situations. However, not all theorists would see the work of
Becker and the other labelling theorists as quite so radical. As a matter of
fact, many sociologists view labelling theory as an untestable and untrue
theory. Furthermore, Becker (1963) acknowledges that his labelling theory is a
theoretical approach, not a true theory. As well, Becker suggests that
sociologists should attempt establishing empirical tests for his
approach.
The conservative nature of labelling theory was also
criticized, specifically by E. M. Schur. He suggested that although the
sociology of the underdog is indispensable in the alleviation of the unnecessary
suffering of the deviant individual, the labelling theorists are guilty of
romanticizing certain non-political deviations and avoiding a truly radical
critique of the social system as a whole (1971). However, one of the major
criticisms of labelling theory is that it is deterministic. As a matter of fact,
it specifically treats the individuals as if they were no more than passive
organisms, herded into behaviour by the act of the labels being given to it. As
well, further criticism is given due to the fact that, following behaviour
patterns is the mere result of the behaviour patterns being ascribed to it. For
instance, Herbert Blumer (1969) suggests that the human being is seen as an
active organism in his own right, facing, dealing with, and acting toward the
object he indicates. On the other hand, Alexander Liazos (1972) provides for
three criticisms based on the work of labelling theorists. First of all, he
notes that although a labelling theorists aim is to humanise the deviant
individual and show that he or she is no different than other individuals,
except perhaps in terms of opportunity. However, by the very emphasis on the
deviant and his identity problems and subculture, the opposite effect may have
been achieved (Liazos,1972). Secondly, he suggests that while considering the
more usual, everyday types of deviance, such as homosexuality, prostitution, and
juvenile delinquency, the labelling theorists have totally ignored a more
dangerous and malevolent type of deviance, what Liazos himself terms covert
institutional violence. He suggests that this type of violence leads to such
things as poverty and exploitation, the war in Vietnam, unjust tax laws, racism,
sexism, and so on... (1972). However, it is questionable whether labelling
theorists should even attempt to discuss forms of deviance such as this in the
same way as more commonplace individual crimes, or whether the two should be
kept totally separate, being so different in subject matter. Liazos also
criticises the labelling theorists as they do not consider the extent of the
importance of power in their substantive analysis, although all stress its
importance. He says that the really powerful, the upper classes and the power
elite, those that could be referred to as the top dogs, are not considered in
any great detail by the labelling theorists.
A further criticism of the
labelling theory is that of Jack Gibb (1966). He questions the success of the
labelling theorists in terms of how they interpret the defining of behaviour as
deviant, as well as, how much study is actually done in this area. In addition,
Becker (1963) goes out of his way to explain the underlying problems of
labelling theory. First of all, he suggests that there are not enough studies of
deviant behaviour. He further implies that there are not enough studies of
enough kinds of deviant behaviour. Finally, he insists that another deficiency
of the labelling theory is that they don't have enough studies in which the
persons doing the research achieve close contact with those that they study, in
order for them to become aware of the complex and manifold character of the
deviant activity. Becker (1963) also speaks of the difficulty with secrecy. As a
matter of fact, in many cases the deviant individual performs deviant acts in
secrecy and does not wish this behaviour to be known universally. For example,
in the results found by Humphreys in his study of the `Tearoom Trade`, many of
the individuals partaking in homosexual behaviour were married with children.
When asked later in questionnaires about their views on homosexuality, very few
admitted to visiting the tearooms.
RESEARCH BY LABELLING
THEORISTS
In many cases of deviance, secrecy will create problems when
researching. As a matter of fact, it is extremely difficult for a researcher to
observe the deviant individuals in their everyday lives, especially in dangerous
areas of society in which there may be problems of infiltration, gaining trust
and violent people. It may also be difficult for the researcher to observe
impartially, or to continue without being led to either commit the crimes
themselves, or to try to prevent the crimes from being committed. An example of
this can be seen in Parker's View from the Boys (1974), where he studied boys in
an area of Liverpool. Parker was able to gain acceptance only because he had
previously met some of the boys at a country holiday centre for Liverpool's
deprived children. According to Parker (1974), If I had not been young, hairy,
boozy, willing to keep long hours and accept permissive standards, the liaison
would never have worked. However, Parker admits that his presence affected the
behaviour of the boys. For example, on occasions he stopped them from committing
crimes and helped them out when they were caught.
Another aspect of
labelling theory in which Becker outlines as problematic, is the concept of
morality. He questions a situation where the researcher's sympathies should lie.
He contemplates on whether one should side with the underdog or simply judge
criminal behaviour as inherently wrong? He stresses the sociological difficulty
of this decision. He claims that the researcher, whether taking either side,
will be accused of taking a one-sided and distorted view, but how is it possible
to see the situation from both sides simultaneously (Becker, 1963)? Despite many
contributions, the evaluation of labelling theorists is normally considered with
an excessive amount of criticism.
CONTRIBUTION
In attempting to
evaluate the contribution of the labelling theorists to the study of the
sociology of deviance, it depends on how the theory is viewed. If labelling
theory is actually considered to be a theory, its flaws are many. However, if we
attempt to consider the theory as a mere way of looking at deviance (as it was
intended according to Becker), the contributions are many, as they opened up a
whole new study of the individual after he or she has committed an act of
deviance. It is also important to know that, labelling theorists do not merely
consider the after-effects of the deviant act, as it is sometimes suggested. For
example, in one of Becker's studies, he considers the individual and how he
began to smoke marijuana. Furthermore, labelling theory along with the labelling
theorists, will continue in their usefulness as long as deviant behaviour
exists.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, labelling theory has now spread
outside the confines of the sociology of deviance. For example, the imputation
of the label `insane` to a person may represent an important stage in the
process of becoming mentally ill. Labelling theory has also been used to explain
witchcraft. Nevertheless, the theory in its entirety has provided a beneficial
development of the sociological understanding of self-conceptions, relationships
between deviance, social reaction and social control. Furthermore, after
thorough analysis it is evident that labelling theory has proven to be very
significant in establishing a relative body of empirical research evidence on
the study of crime and
deviance.
Bibliography
References
Becker, H. S. (1963).
Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, NY: The Free
Press
Becker, H. S. (1964). The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance. New
York, NY: The Free Press
Becker, H. S. (1967). Whose Side Are We On?,
Social Problems. 14:239-247
Blumer, H. (1966). Symbolic Interactionism.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Blumer, H. (1969). Sociological
Implications of the Thoughts of George Herbert Mead. Englewood Cliff, New
Jersey.
Cicourel, V. A. (1968). The Social Organization of Juvenile
Justice. New York, NY: The Free Press
Erikson, K. T. (1966). Wayward
Puritans. Wiley, NY.
Gibb, J. (1966). Conceptions of Deviant Behaviour:
The Old and the New. Elsevier, New York.
Heckert, D. (1997). Ugly
Duckling to Swan: Labelling Theory and the Stigmatization of Red Hair. Symbolic
Interaction, 20(4):365-385
Liazos, A. (1972). The Poverty of the
Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts and Perverts.
Mead, H. G. (1962).
Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Pfol, S. J. (1994). Images of Deviance and
Social Control: A Sociological History., 2nd ed. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Ritzer, G. (2000). Sociological Theory, 5th ed.
McGraw-Hill
Schur, E. M. (1971). Labelling Deviant Behaviour: Its
Sociological Implications. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Simmons, J. L
(1969). Deviants. Berkeley,
California