Download File

LABELLING THEORY
Labeling theory is the theory of how the self-identity and behavior of
individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used to describe
or classify them. It is associated with the concepts of self-fulfilling prophecy
and stereotyping. Labeling theory holds that deviance is not inherent to an
act, but instead focuses on the tendency of majorities to negatively label
minorities or those seen as deviant from standard cultural norms.[1] The
theory was prominent during the 1960s and 1970s, and some modified
versions of the theory have developed and are still currently popular.
Unwanted descriptors or categorizations - including terms related to
deviance, disability or diagnosis of a mental disorder - may be rejected on
the basis that they are merely "labels", often with attempts to adopt a more
constructive language in its place. A stigma is defined as a powerfully
negative label that changes a person's self-concept and social identity.[2]
Labeling theory is closely related to social-construction and symbolicinteraction analysis.[3] Labeling theory was developed by sociologists
during the 1960s. Howard Saul Becker's book Outsiders was extremely
influential in the development of this theory and its rise to popularity.
Definition: Labeling theory is based on the idea that behaviors are
deviant only when society labels them as deviant. As such, conforming
members of society, who interpret certain behaviors as deviant and
then attach this label to individuals, determine the distinction between
deviance and non-deviance. Labeling theory questions who applies
what label to whom, why they do this, and what happens as a result of
this labeling. Powerful individuals within society (politicians, judges,
police officers, etc.) typically impose the most significant labels.
Labeled persons may include drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals,
delinquents, prostitutes, sex offenders, and psychiatric patients, to
mention a few. The consequences of being labeled as deviant can be
far-reaching. Social research indicates that those who have negative
labels usually have lower self-images, are more likely to reject
themselves, and may even act more deviantly as a result of the label.
Unfortunately, people who accept the labeling of others—be it correct
or incorrect—have a difficult time changing their opinions of the
labeled person, even in light of evidence to the contrary.
SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY
Social control theory proposes that people's relationships, commitments,
values, norms, and beliefs encourage them not to break the law. Thus, if
moral codes are internalized and individuals are tied into, and have a stake
in their wider community, they will voluntarily limit their propensity to
commit deviant acts. The theory seeks to understand the ways in which it
is possible to reduce the likelihood of criminality developing in individuals.
It does not consider motivational issues, simply stating that human beings
may choose to engage in a wide range of activities, unless the range is
limited by the processes of socialization and social learning. This derives
from a Hobbesian view of human nature as represented in Leviathan, i.e.
that all choices are constrained by implicit social contracts, agreements
and arrangements among people. Thus, morality is created in the
construction of social order, assigning costs and consequences to certain
choices and defining some as evil, immoral and/or illegal.
Nye (1958) not only elaborated a social control theory of delinquency, but
specified ways to "operationalize" (measure) control mechanisms and
related them to self-reports of delinquent behavior. He formulated the
theory having formally interviewed 780 young people in Washington State,
but the sample was criticized because it did not have any representatives
from any urban environments, and those selected might have been more
apt to describe their families unfavorably. Some were concerned that
criminal activity was only mentioned in two of the questions, so the
extrapolations to crime in general were considered unsafe. Like Reiss, he
focused on the family as a source of control. Moreover, Nye specified three
different types of control:
• direct control = punishments and rewards
• indirect control = affectionate identification with non-criminals; and
• internal control = conscience or sense of guilt.
Youth may be directly controlled through constraints imposed by parents,
limiting the opportunity for delinquency, as well as through parental
rewards and punishments. However, they may be constrained when free
from direct control by their anticipation of parental disapproval (indirect
control), or through the development of a conscience, an internal constraint
on behavior. The focus on the family as a source of control was in marked
contrast to the emphasis on economic circumstances as a source of
criminogenic motivation at the time. Although he acknowledged
motivational forces by stating that, "...some delinquent behavior results
from a combination of positive learning and weak and ineffective social
control" (1958: 4), he adopted a control-theory position when he proposed
that, "...most delinquent behavior is the result of insufficient social
control..."
Criticisms[edit]
Much of the early research on social control theory is based on selfreporting studies. Critics of self-report data note that there may be various
motives for disclosing information, and that questions may be interpreted
differently by individual participants. Nevertheless, many of the conclusions
are intuitively convincing, e.g. that individuals will not engage in crime if
they think that this will sacrifice the affection or respect of significant
others, or cause them to lose employment or their autonomy if they face
imprisonment. Davies (1994 and 2004), reports that in late-nineteenth
century Britain, crime rates fell dramatically, as did drug and alcohol
abuse, and illegitimacy became less common. All of these indexes of
deviance were fairly steady between World War I and 1955. After 1955,
they all rose to create a U-curve of deviance, over the period from 1847 to
1997. He attributes the initial shift to adoption of a culture in which the
assumptions of Protestant Christianity were taken for granted. Everyone at
the time believed - at least somewhat - in a moral code of helping others.
This belief was rooted in religion. The same social norms for the defense
of the person and property that informed the law before 1955 remain the
policy norms. Furthermore, the concept that people are uncontrollable and
may offend against those norms in social interactions, cannot be explained
by simply counting how many people practice the golden rule (see the
general discussion in Braithwaite: 1989).
DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY
In criminology, Differential Association is a theory developed by Edwin
Sutherland proposing that through interaction with others, individuals learn
the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior.
The Differential Association Theory is the most talked about of the
Learning Theories of deviance. This theory focuses on how individuals
learn to become criminals, but does not concern itself with why they
become criminals. Learning Theory is closely related to the Interactionist
perspective; however, it is not considered so because Interactionism
focuses on the construction of boundaries in society and persons'
perceptions of them.
Sutherland's Theory of Differential Association[edit]
The principles of Sutherland's Theory of Differential Association can be
summarized into nine key points:
1. Criminal behavior is learned.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a
process of communication.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within
intimate personal groups.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes techniques of
committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes
simple and the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and
attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of
the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions
favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the
law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and
intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal
and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved
in any other learning.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it
is not explained by those needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is
an expression of the same needs and values.
Critique[edit]
One critique labeled towards this theory has to do with the idea that people
can be independent, rational actors and individually motivated. This notion
of one being a criminal based on his or her environment is problematic.
This theory does not take into account personality traits that might affect a
person's susceptibility to these environmental influences. [3]
SUBCULTURAL THEORY
Subcultural Theories
POSTED BY SAM COOK⋅ MAY 12, 2012 ⋅LEAVE A COMMENT
FILED UNDER CLOWARD AND OHLIN, HUMAN-RIGHTS, NORMS AND VALUES, POLITICS,
RELIGION, SOCIETY
Subcultural theories build upon the work of Merton. They say that deviance is the
result of individuals conforming to the values and norms of a social group to
which they belong, if you belong to a social group whose norms differ from those
of the main society then you will become a deviant.
Cohen said lower-working-class boys want to achieve the success which is
valued by mainstream culture. But due to educational failure and the dead-end
jobs that result from this they have little chance of achieving these goals. This
results in status frustration, the boys are at the bottom of the social structure
and have little chance of gaining a higher status in society. This is similar to
Merton’s theory, however Cohen said that instead of turning to crime as Merton
said, they reject the norms and values of mainstream society and instead turn to
the norms and values of a delinquent subculture. In this subculture the boys can
achieve success because the social group has different norms and values from
the rest of society. So in this culture a high value is placed upon criminal acts
such as stealing and vandalism which are condemned by mainstream society.
In these subcultures the individual who lacked respect in mainstream society can
gain it by committing crimes such as vandalism and truancy. Because the crimes
reward the individual with respect there is not always the need for a monetary
value to commit a crime, so the subcultural perspective explains why people
commit non-utilitarian crimes.
Cloward and Ohlindeveloped Cohen’s theory. They said that there are three
different types of subcultures that young people might enter into; criminal
subcultures, conflict subcultures and retreatist subcultures.
Criminal subcultures tend to emerge in areas where there is a lot of organised
adult crime, here there are criminal role models for young people, and they learn
how to commit criminal acts. In these subcultures the young people can climb up
the professional criminal ladder by committing more crimes. These subcultures
are normally concerned with utilitarian crimes, which yield financial reward.
Conflict subcultures tend to emerge in areas where there is little organised
adult crime, so instead of learning how to commit serious monetary crimes the
young people instead focus on gaining respect through gang violence.
Retreatist subcultures are for young people who have even failed in the
criminal subcultures, these people are ‘double failures’. They tend to retreat to
drugs and alcohol abuse to deal with the fact that they have been rejected from
other subcultures.
Walter B. Millersaid that a deviant subculture doesn’t arise from the inability of
the members to achieve success; instead he said that crime is a result of the fact
that there is a lower-class subculture with different norms and values to the rest
of society. He said these different values mean that for members of this culture
there are a number of concerns and things people want to achieve, he called
these focal concerns and they include:
Toughness – Miller said that people within the lower-class subculture value
toughness as an important trait; however this can manifest itself in assault and
violence.
Smartness – This culture also value the ability to outfox each other. This will
often lead to people trying to con, pickpocket or steal from each other in ‘clever’
ways.
Excitement – This culture constantly searches for excitement and thrills. This
often means gambling, alcohol and sexual adventures.
Miller said this mix of ‘focal concerns’ can lead to a culture which accepts crime
and deviance as normal.
David Matzasaid that delinquents aren’t actually in opposition to society’s norms
and values. He said that society has a strong moral hold on them and this
prevents them from engaging in delinquent activities for most of the time, he said
that the fact that these people often show remorse for their actions later in life
support this view. Instead he said these young delinquents are involved in crime
only occasionally as part-time law breakers.
Matza said that delinquents convince themselves they are not breaking the law,
and this allows them to commit crimes whilst still accepting society’s norms and
values. However, Matza said that within mainstream societies values there are
‘subterranean values’ which promote the ideas of acting in the spur of the
moment for excitement and thrills. Although the subterranean values are within
mainstream societies set of values, they could encourage behaviour which
breaks the law and are then seen by mainstream society as criminal or deviant.
Through this theory of ‘delinquency drift’ Matza explains how he thinks young
people within a subculture can break the values of society without really
recognising that they are doing so, and then later in life drift back into
mainstream society as these subterranean values become less important to the
individual.