You are on page 1of 12

The

contribution that the Labelling theory has


made to our understanding of the nature of
crime and deviance.

Chung J.

LABELLING THEORY 1

Introduction

Labelling theory was a dominating approach which was utilized by different
criminologist to explain crime and deviance in the period of 1950s and 1970s
(Burke, 2009). Although it is still a prevalent criminological theory today, it has
been subject to different criticisms, such as Gibbs (1966) and Young (1981). The
intellectual heritage of labelling represents the ideology of symbolic
interactionism from the Chicago School (Williams and Mcshane, 2010). Under
the labelling perspective, it took a different approach to examine crime and
deviance. Instead of focusing on individual deviants, the advocates of labelling
theory argued that the understanding of crime and deviance should be relied on
societal reaction to particular deviant behaviors (Burke, 2009). In the following
sections, the contribution of labelling theory will be critically evaluated to
understand the crime and deviance. The first section will discuss how social
control leads to deviance. The Second section will examine the Beckers
typology of deviance. After that, the third section will analyze further deviant
behavior as a result of labelling effect. Also, policy implication will be discussed
in the fourth section. Finally, it will go through some criticism of labeling
theory.

Social control leads to deviance

According to Taylor et al. (1973), they argued that the social control in which
the deterrence, punishment and prevention of deviance per se can cause
deviation. The statement that social control leads to deviance has three
different meaning. The first meaning is that although there is massive amount
of rule-breaking occur in society, it will only be deemed a deviant behavior until
some social audience labels it (Taylor et al., 1973). Basically, this is the definition
of crime and deviance under labelling theory. Kitsuse (1962) and Erikson (1962)
believed that the inherent property of the deviant behavior per se do not
constitute deviance because it is only created by some conventional social
audience who label the said behavior as deviant. Besides, Becker (1963)
indicated that the earlier criminologists had over-concentrated on original

LABELLING THEORY 2

deviants, but neglecting how people react to the behavior. He argued that to
constitute deviance, there must be societal reaction to the acts. It means that
deviance must be identified and reacted by others who recognized that the act
is deemed to be inappropriate and violating social norms. In the quintessential
statement, Becker (1963:9) stated that Social groups create deviance by making
the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, deviance is not a quality of
the act the person commits, butsanctions to an offender. According to this
statement, the ideology is that the existent of deviant behavior is not necessary,
as long as the reactors believe in it and once the label is successfully applied to
the act, deviance would occur (Williams and Mcshane, 2010). Therefore, Becker
believed that deviance is in the eye of the beholder. It is supported by Young
(1981) who contended that for acts to be defined as deviant or criminal under
the notion of labelling theory, the individuals must act in specific manner in
which its value contradict other groups who then label the initial act as deviant.
In addition, the definition of deviance and crime under labelling theory could
be variable in the light of different time period, location and conduct norms
(Adler &Adler 2002; Sellin, 1938). So there is no universal definition of deviance
as it varies from different social context (Curra, 2000). For example, the
prominent code-breaker Alan Turing was convicted of gross indecency under
Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (Leavitt, 2006). However,
homosexuality was decriminalized under the Sexual Offences Act 1967. Another
example is that that people are normalizing and accepting some deviant
behavior which was deemed to be unacceptable at previous time (Moynihan
1993). These illustrated that the existence of crime and deviance depends on the
societal reaction in particular social context. The second meaning is that the
powerful reaction of social control agencies can amplify deviance in which it
leads the individual to accept the deviant role and committed further deviance
(Taylor et al., 1973). They argued that if an individual is caught and publicly
labelled as deviant, it would affect the individuals social selfimage and generate
the transformational process of personal identity to deviant role. Cohen (1966)
argued that the label can signify the committed deviant act and evokes a
characteristic imagery which force the individuals behave in the expected

LABELLING THEORY 3

deviant label. The ideology of this second meaning is similar to secondary


deviance which will be discussed in third section below.

The third meaning is that the official crime rate does not reflect actual amount
of deviance because it is merely the subjective process handled by social control
agencies (Taylor et al., 1973). It has been suggested that certain characteristics
of outsiders actually affect whether the acts will be subject to reaction or not
(Williams and Mcshane, 2010). Garfinkel (1956) believed that if outsides are less
socially powerful, it is more likely they will be labelled as criminal or deviant.
The classic study of The Saints and the Roughnecks by William Chambliss
illustrates the aforesaid phenomenon. Chambliss (1973) wanted to explore
whether social class affect the labeling process. The Saints who came from
middle-class families were alcoholic and involved some offences such as
vandalism and minor theft. He found that they were tend to be labelled as
good kid and rarely being arrested by police. On the contrary, the Roughnecks
who came from lower-class families engaged in vandalism far less than the
Saints, but they were subject to frequent arrest and labelled as troublemaker.
Also, Steffensmeier and Terry (1973) found that the hippies were subject to
more report by the witnesses even if the committed offense rate of hippies and
preppies were the same. Therefore, people who are lower-class are more likely
to be labelled as delinquent and generate reaction (Williams and Mcshane,
2010). As a result, Kitsuse and Cicourel (1963) argued that the official crime
statistic merely represents the reaction of police who selectively label certain
individuals and bring them into criminal system. The official statistic is
fabrication because it only reflects the prejudiced social control agencies who
discriminately label lower-class people (Young, 1981).

Beckers typology of deviance

In the second section, it will analyze the four types of deviant behaviors which
were proposed by Becker (1963) who wanted to clarify the concept of norm or
rulebreaking deviance and deviance of reaction approach (Taylor et al., 1973).
The first type is falsely accused which means that the reactors label the act as

LABELLING THEORY 4

deviance but the outsiders are either conforming or the act even do not exist.
For example, in the miscarriage justice cases of Guildford Four and Birmingham
Six, the defendants were wrongfully convicted of murder and falsely accused
(Walker, 2002). The second and third types of deviant behavior are conforming
and pure deviant, it means that the reaction of audiences correspond with the
actuality of the acts. Lastly, the fourth type is secret deviant which means that
the social audience have no reaction toward to the deviant behavior but it had
absolutely occurred. For instance, during the unlawful homicide case of
Stephen Lawrence case in 1993, the murderers had been acquitted of murder
(Lawrence, 2007). Their criminality was ignored until they were eventually
convicted in 2012.

Further deviant behavior as a result of labelling effect

The third section will explore the impact of labelling on further deviance
behavior. Wilkins (1965) stated that a label attached to individuals would draw
labeling audiences attention, resulting in constantly labelling process. Also, the
individuals could internalize the label and accept the deviant role. He believed
that it will exacerbate the deviance and cause career deviance. This ideology is
similar to primary and secondary deviance which were proposed by Lemert
(1951) who argued that after the primary deviance occurs, it will catch the eye of
social audience. Once an individual is labelled as deviant and he/she gradually
accepts and internalizes that role, the secondary deviance will occur. The
process of internalization can lead to self-fulfilling prophecy which means that
they behave according to the expectation of the deviant role (Merton, 1948).
However, Lemert (1967) indicated that the internalization and secondary
deviance are not automatic phenomena, their existence depend on the
sensitivity and vulnerability of the individuals. Furthermore, the master statues
of the individuals facilitate the process of internalizing the specific deviant role
(Hughes, 1945; Becker, 1963). Master states means that the primary
characteristic (mater status) of the individuals override other auxiliary status
(Williams and Mschane, 2010). The following examples illustrate the occurrence
of secondary deviance in the course of internalization. The first example is the

LABELLING THEORY 5

Beckers study of becoming a marijuana user. Becker (1953) explored how the
delinquents (marijuana users) involved in smoking behavior and the label of
initial deviance cause subsequent deviant behavior. Firstly, the new users learn
the method of smoking from their peers and then the primary deviance occurs.
After that, they may be arrested by police and are subject to punishment by the
courts due to engage in marijuana activity. Because of the public punishment,
they caught the attention of reactors and were labelled as deviants and
delinquents. Moreover, the label will segregate them from mainstream society.
Thus it was difficult for them to find a job. Under the circumstance of extremely
limited choice, they would more likely to internalized their deviant role (master
status) and continue to take drug to avoid the reality (secondary deviance). Also,
Schwartz and Skolnick (1962) found that the more indication of criminal
involvement by the individuals, the higher probability that they will be labelled
as criminal and the chance of being employed would be decreased. The low
employability would separate them from mainstream society, resulting in
further deviant acts. Another example is the Cohens study of Mods and
Rockers. Cohen (1972) argued that the moral entrepreneurs, especially the mass
media and social control agencies, amplify deviance of Mods and Rockers as
they were label as Folk Devil. He also argued that the constant label would
lead them accept the deviant role (master status), resulting in self-fulfilling
prophecy. Their deviant labels separate them from mainstream society.
Therefore, according the aforesaid three examples, it demonstrates the process
of internalizing the mater status cause secondary deviance due to separation
from mainstream society. In addition, Young (1981) cited the Troy Dusters
study of heroin addicts to support his evaluation of labelling effect on the cause
of crime. Young (1981) argued that labelling process would result in ideological
and coercive consequence which means that the individuals are labelled as the
master status and resulting in punishment as if they have no freedom and
choice in society once they are being labelled. According to Duster (1970), the
heroin addicted identity would be regarded as their master status which
overriding other personal characteristic. Once they are stigmatized, it is very
difficult for them to reintegrate the conventional society (Goffman, 1963).
Because the label severely limits the future choice of the addicts. Moreover,

LABELLING THEORY 6

Duster noted that the therapeutic treatment would reinforce the master status
and make them to accept and internalize the deviant label. He argued that this
deviancy amplification process would result in self-fulfilling prophecy.
Therefore, the criminal career and extreme deviant acts do not exist until social
reaction occurs (Young, 1981). Policy implication In the fourth section, it will go
through some policy implication under labelling theory. It can be classified in
five

general

types,

namely

diversion,

decriminalization,

radical

non-intervention, deinstitutionalization and due process (Empey, 1982; Lilly et


al., 1989; Schur 1973). They are mainly applied in the juvenile justice system
(Onwudiwe, 2004). Diversion means that the delinquents and children are
diverted from the juvenile criminal system. It can avoid the stigma and label
attached to them. Because it has been argued that labelling process can
generate secondary deviant behavior (Lemert, 1951). Besides, decriminalizing
minor offence can also avoid the delinquencies being stigmatized and labelled
as criminals, and help them to reintegrate the society. An example of
decriminalization is the legalization of taking marijuana (Galston & Dionne,
2013). Also, Schur (1973) introduced the radical non-intervention which means
that the crime without victim, such as prostitution and gambling, should be
decriminalized. For the notion behind these policies, Braithwaite (1989)
proposed the theory of reintegrative shaming which serve a function of
punishing criminals and reintegrate them into conventional community. In
contrast, the disintegrative shaming would stigmatize and label them as deviant
and ex-con, segregating them from mainstream society, and they would
ultimately commit more crime (Miller et al., 2008). As for deinstitutionalization,
it has been argued that the incapacitation of mental patients is actually doing
harm to them. For example, Scheff (1966) stated that labelling the incapacitated
patients as mental illness would cause residual deviance. In addition, Goffman
(1963) also asserted that the individuals would internalize the deviant role in
the course of treatment in metal hospital. Besides, Miller (1991) claimed that
institutions can bring a side effect on the mental offenders. In terms of due
process, it has been argued that the criminal justice system should treat all
offenders equally in spite of different characteristic of them (Williams and
Mschane, 2010). Sherman (1993) introduced the defiance theory, which means

LABELLING THEORY 7

that the punishment within criminal justice system should be perceived as due,
fair and procedural legitimate by the offenders, otherwise further deviant
behavior will occur.
Criticism

Finally, regarding to the criticism of labelling theory, it has been argued that the
applicability of labelling effect on deviance has not been adequately tested, also
there is little evidence to support the theory (Gove, 1976; Hirschi, 1975; Welford,
1975). Besides, Taylor et al. (1973) criticized that the labelling theory lacks
systematic and consistent explanation to deviance because it over-emphasizes
that deviance is not the inherent property of the act itself and lapses into
relativistic idealism in which there would be no deviance without labels. They
contended that the reality is that most deviant behavior is a quality of the act.
For example, it is impossible that someone with the intention to permanently
deprive others property without the others consent is unaware this is the social
act of stealing (Taylor et al., 1973). In addition, if public reaction is the only
determinant of deviance, it is unreasonable that Becker can identify secret
deviants because it contradicts the reaction approach (Gibbs, 1966). Thus he
noted that there is no ambiguity of hard deviance, such as murder and rape,
which is universally unacceptable. So the labelling theory is unrelated because
such deviance has been defined under existing social norms (Burke, 2009).
Another criticism is the over-emphasis of the distinction between primary and
secondary deviance, it is because the reasons for committing secondary
deviance are different from initial deviance seems to be unproven (Taylor et al.,
1973). Also, they argued that Lemert avoid the question of primary deviance and
does not explain why secondary deviance is more important than initial
deviance. For instance, an individual can constantly engage in sexually deviant
acts without experiencing any social reaction. Therefore, they argued that the
concept of primary and secondary deviance cannot be separate, deviance
should be explained in totality of every social context indeed, such as social
structure and inequality (Taylor et al., 1973). Also, Young (1981) argued that the
non-intervention of crime would ignores the detrimental effect on society and
the public fear. Because it only tackles the problem merely by decreasing

LABELLING THEORY 8

reaction to criminal. Besides, it has been critiqued that the deviant behavior
may not be the direct consequence of labelling, because it is difficult to draw
the causal relationship between the subsequent behavior and labelling effect
(Akers & Sellers, 2009). In conclusion, the labelling theory contributes to the
understanding on crime and deviance in different ways. Firstly, the social
control leads to deviance has been illustrated. Also, the Beckers typology of
deviant behavior has been discussed. Besides, Lemert introduced the concept of
secondary deviance to explain the subsequent deviance as a result of labeling.
Young (1981) supported this idea and he cited Dusters work to illustrate the
process of further deviance. Also, the policy implication of crime and deviance
has been discussed to illustrate how to reduce further deviant acts under
labelling perspective. However, it should be noted that the explanation of crime
and deviance under labelling theory has its own limitation and is subject to
different criticism. Therefore, crime and deviance should be explained in
totality.

LABELLING THEORY 9

Reference List

Adler, P. & Adler, P. (2002) Construction of deviance: social power, context and
interaction. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Akers, R. L. & Sellers, C. S. (2009) Criminology theories, 5th edition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Becker, H. S. (1953) Becoming a marijuana user. American Journal of Sociology,
59, 236-242.
Becker, H. S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York:
Free Press.
Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Burke, R. H. (2009) An introduction to criminological theory, 3rd edition.
Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Chambliss, W. J. (1973) The saints and the roughnecks. Society, 11(1), 24-31.
Cohen, A. K. (1966) Deviance and control. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, S. (1972) Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the Mods and
Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Curra, J. (2000) The relativity of deviance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication.
Duster, T. (1970) The Legislation of Morality. New York: Free Press.
Empey, L. T. (1982) American delinquency. Chicago: Dorsey Press
Erikson, K. T. (1962) Notes on the sociology of deviance. Social Problems, 9
(Spring), 307-314.
Galston, W. A. & Dionne, E. J (2013) The new politics of marijuana legalization:
Why opinion is changing. Brooking Institution. Available online:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/05/29-poli
ticsmarijuana-legalization-galston-dionne/dionne-galston_newpoliticsof
mjleg_final.pdf [Accessed 17/2/2016]
Garfinkel, H. (1956) Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies.
American Journal of Sociology, 61(5), 420-424.
Gibbs, J. P. (1966) Conceptions of deviant behavior: The old and the new.
Pacific Sociological Review, 9(1), 914.
Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity.

LABELLING THEORY 1
0

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Gove, W. R. (1976) Deviant behavior,


social intervention, and labeling theory. In Coser, L. A. & Laesen, O. N.
(eds) Uses of controversy in sociology. New York: Free Press, 219-227.
Hughes, E. C. (1945) Dilemmas and contradictions of status. American Journal
of Sociology, 50(5), 353-359.
Hirschi, T. (1975) Labeling theory and juvenile delinquency: An assessment of
the evidence. In Gove, W. R. (ed) The labelling of deviance: Evaluating a
perspective. New York: Halsted, 181-201.
Kitsuse, J. I. (1962), Societal reaction to deviant behavior: Problems of theory
and method. Social Problems, 9 (Winter), 247-256.
Kitsuse, J. & Cicourel, A. V. (1963) A note on the use of official statistics. Social
Problems, 11(2), 131-139.
Lawrence, D. (2007) And still I rise. London: Faber & Faber.
Leavitt, D. (2006) The man who knew too much: Alan Turing and the
invention of the computer. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Lemert, E. M. (1951) Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of
sociopathic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lemert, E. M. (1967) Human deviance, social problem and social control.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T. & Ball, R. A. (1989) Criminological theory: Context and
consequence. Newbury Park: SAGE Publication.
Merton, R. K. (1948) The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2),
193-210.
Miller, J. G. (1991) Last one over the wall: The Massachusetts experiment in
closing reform schools. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Miller, J. M., Schreck, C. J. & Tewksbury, R. (2008) Criminological theory: A
brief introduction, 2nd edition. Boston: Pearson.
Moynihan, D. P. (1993) Defining deviancy down. The American Scholar, 62(1),
17-30.
Onwudiwe, I. D. (2004). Theoretical perspectives on juvenile delinquency: Root
causes and control. Corrections Today, 66(6), 153-156.
Scheff, T. (1966) Being mentally ill. Chicago: Aldine.
Schur, E. M. (1973) Radical non-intervention: Rethinking the delinquency

LABELLING THEORY 1
1

problem. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.


Schwartz, R. D. & Skolnick, J. H. (1962) Two studies of legal stigma. Social
Problems, 10, 133-138.
Sellin, J. T. (1938) Culture conflict and crime. New York: Social Science
Research Council
Sherman, L. W. (1993) Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the
criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4),
445-473.
Steffensmeier, D. J. & Terry, R. M. (1973) Deviance and respectability: An
observational study of reactions to shoplifting. Social Forces, 51(4),
417-426.
Taylor, I., Walton, P., Young, J. (1973) The new criminological theory: For a
social theory of deviance. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Walker, C. (2002) Chapter 27: Miscarriages of justice and the correction of
error. In McConville, M. & Wilson, G. (eds) The handbook of the criminal
justice process. Oxford University Press, 505-523.
Welford, C. F. (1975). Labelling theory and criminology: An assessment. Social
Problems, 22(3), 332-345.
Wilkins, L. T. (1965) Social deviance: social policy, action and research.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Williams, F. P. & Mcshane, M. D. (2010) Criminological theory, 5th edition.
Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Young, J. (1981) Thinking seriously about crime: some models of criminology.
In Fitzgerald, M., McLennan, G. & Pawson, J. (eds) Crime and Society:
Readings in History and Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

LABELLING THEORY 1
2

You might also like