Download Labelling Theory: Evaluation

Labelling Theory: Evaluation.
When labelling theory first emerged in the 1960s it quickly became very influential
and many sociologists began to apply to a wide range of areas within sociology.
Goffman used it to study mental illness, Lemert applied to the phenomenon of stuttering. However it has not been without its critics. Some of the main criticisms of this
approach are:
Criticisms
1. Their definition of crime states that crime is socially constructed and depends on
societal reaction. However Taylor, Walton and Young point out that this is not the only
defining feature. It is possible to talk about deviant "acts" or "crimes" since most social rules are given. We have no choice how to interpret acts such as murder or the
deliberate taking of life for personal gain.
2. The origins of crime. Labelling theory fails to explain why people commit deviant
acts in the first place. according to Lemert it is not necessary because everyone commits deviant acts therefore it is only those to whom rules are applied that we need to
consider. But:
 Not every one commits the same deviant act. Therefore different forms of rule
breaking need to be explained.
 Deviants are aware that their law breaking activities are against the law whether or not they are labelled.
 It is wrong to think primary deviance will have no effect on the deviant’s selfconcept.
3. Labelling is deterministic. It appears as though once labelled, the deviant has
little choice but to continue along a deviant career path.
4. Labelling theory fails to explain why:
 The police etc., see particular groups as a problem. (E.g. why so often black
people and working class people.)
 We have some laws and not others.
5. Interactionism has been accused of being only concerned with trivial or exotic
forms of deviance such as marijuana users, rent boys etc.
6. Gender. Like other areas of the sociology of deviance, labelling theories are only
concerned with male deviance.
Labelling Perspective: Law creation.
Functionalists give little consideration to why we have some laws as opposed to others. They
see law as deriving from consensus i.e. people broadly agree that the laws we have are in everyone's interests. Marxists by contrast make law creation central to their theory of deviance:
laws are seen to derive from the interests of the capitalist ruling class and serve to further
their interests and to preserve the status quo.
A frequent Marxist criticism of labeling theory is that, while they tell us much about the process of deviance i.e. how the police etc. come to see certain groups as a problem and they
have much to say about the relative nature of social rules, they tell us little about why it is that
we have some laws as opposed to others.
Becker however has applied labeling theory to the process of law creation. Unlike Marxists,
Becker argues that what is defined as deviant is not necessarily a reflection of the interests of
the ruling class. According to labeling theory certain groups attempt to make certain acts illegal because:
 They see it as being in their interests. This might be their economic interests but they
may have other motives.
 They genuinely believe it to be in the interests of society.
The development of the laws that made marijuana illegal
The Marijuana Tax Act
The use of marijuana was illegal in the USA until 1937 but opiates had been banned long before that. According to Becker, underlying US drug laws are three values:
 The Protestant value of self control and responsibility. Stress is placed on the belief that people make rational decisions and should accept responsibility for their actions. However when "on drugs" people are not fully in control of their actions and
therefore it is not clear if they are responsible
 Disapproval of states of ecstasy. The idea of states of ecstasy provokes feelings of
unease. The achievement of such pleasures through drugs is seen as wrong and selfish.
 Humanitarianism. Anything that enslaves people or deprives them of free choice is
wrong.
These values were also associated with the banning of alcohol during the period of prohibition.
The Moral Entrepreneurs
Values alone do not lead to prohibition. Moral entrepreneurs need to wage a moral crusade
on behalf of these values. The moral entrepreneurs in the case were the Treasury Departments
Bureau of Narcotics, whose own motives were bureaucratic: a desire to gain control.
"... they perceived an area of wrong doing that properly belonged to their
jurisdiction and moved to put it there. The personal interest they satisfied in
pressing for marijuana legislation was common to many officials: the interest in
successfully accomplishing a task one has been assigned and acquiring the best
tools with which to accomplish it."
i.e. the bureau was already responsible for opiates and the extension in to marijuana seemed
sensible to officials.
The moral crusade
This involves enlisting support of interested organisations and developing favorable public attitudes towards the proposed law.
First Stage: To win the support of another part of the federal bureaucracy (the Nation conference of Commissioners on uniform State Laws or "NCCUS") in order to co-ordinate the implementation of the law across all states. When NCCUS delayed, The Bureau of narcotics used
"blackmail" i.e. threatened to leave them out of the campaign and NCCUS afraid of a loss of
prestige agreed to support them.
Second Stage. Win public support. A long campaign of releasing selected information to the
press concerning the harmful effects of the drug helped to create a favourable climate of legislation. e.g..:
 "An entire family was murdered by a youthful (marijuana) addict in Florida. When officers arrived at the home they found the youth staggering around in a human slaughterhouse. With an axe he had killed his father, mother, two brothers and a sister. He
seemed to be in a daze ... He had no recollection of committing the multiple crimes.
The officers knew him ordinarily as a sane, rather quiet young man: now he is pitifully
crazed. They sought the reason. The boy said he had been in the habit of smoking
something which youthful friend called "muggles", a childish name for marijuana."
The campaign began in 1932 and by 1937 Congress began to consider a Bill out outlawing marijuana. Becker considers the issue of power - the only effective opposition came from the
manufacturers of hempseed oil. The marijuana seed was essential to their product. After lobbying the government the bill was changed to allow the use by manufactures. Marijuana
smokers with no organised lobby had no say.