Download labeling theory - Holy Spirit Library

L
move offenders closer to lives of crime because of
the label they assign the individuals engaging in
the behavior. As members in society begin to treat
these individuals on the basis of their labels, the
individual begins to accept this label him- or herself. In other words, an individual engages in a
behavior that is deemed by others as inappropriate, others label that person to be deviant, and
eventually the individual internalizes and accepts
this label. This notion of social reaction, reaction
or response by others to the behavior or individual, is central to labeling theory. Critical to this
theory is the understanding that the negative reaction of others to a particular behavior is what
causes that behavior to be labeled as “criminal”
or “deviant.” Furthermore, it is the negative reaction of others to an individual engaged in a particular behavior that causes that individual to be
labeled as “criminal,” “deviant,” or “not normal.” According to the literature, ­several reactions to deviance have been identified, including
collective rule making, organizational processing,
and reaction to reaction.
Becker defined deviance as a “social creation
in which social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular
people and labeling them as outsiders.” Becker
grouped behavior into four categories: falsely
accused, conforming, pure deviant, and secret
deviant. Falsely accused represents those individuals who have engaged in obedient behavior
but have been perceived as deviant; therefore,
they would be falsely labeled as deviant.
Labeling Theory
Labeling theory is a criminological theory stemming out of a sociological perspective known as
“symbolic interactionism,” a school of thought
based on the ideas of George Herbert Mead, John
Dewey, W. I. Thomas, Charles Horton Cooley,
and Herbert Blumer. The first as well as one of
the most prominent labeling theorists was
Howard Becker (1963). Two questions became
popular with criminologists during the mid1960s: What makes some acts and some people
deviant or criminal? During this time, scholars
tried to shift the focus of criminology toward the
effects of individuals in power responding to
behavior in society in a negative way; they
became known as “labeling theorists” or “social
reaction theorists.”
Blumer (1969) emphasized the way that meaning arises in social interaction through communication, using language and symbols. The focus of
this perspective is the interaction between individuals in society, which is the basis for meanings
within that society. These theorists suggested that
powerful individuals and the state create crime
by labeling some behaviors as inappropriate. The
focus of these theorists is on the reactions of
members in society to crime and deviance, separating them from other scholars of the time.
These theorists shaped their argument around the
notion that, even though some criminological
efforts to reduce crime are meant to help the
offender (such as rehabilitation efforts), they may
441
442
Labeling Theory
Conforming represents those individuals who
have engaged in obedient behavior that has been
viewed as obedient behavior (not been ­perceived
as deviant). Pure deviant represents those individuals who have engaged in rule breaking or
deviant behavior that has been recognized as
such; therefore, they would be labeled as deviant
by society. Secret deviant represents those individuals that have engaged in rule breaking or
deviant behavior but have not been perceived as
deviant by society; therefore, they have not been
labeled as deviant.
According to sociologists like Émile Durkheim,
George Herbert Mead, and Kai T. Erikson, deviance is functional to society and keeps stability by
defining boundaries. In 1966, Erikson expanded
labeling theory to include the functions of deviance, illustrating how societal reactions to deviance stigmatize the offender and separate him or
her from the rest of society. The results of this stigmatization is a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the
offender comes to view him- or herself in the same
ways society does.
Key Concepts: Primary
and Secondary Deviance
Primary deviance refers to initial acts of deviance
by an individual that have only minor consequences for that individual’s status or relationships in society. The notion behind this concept is
that the majority of people violate laws or commit
deviant acts in their lifetime; however, these acts
are not serious enough and do not result in the
individual being classified as a criminal by society
or by themselves, as it is viewed as “normal” to
engage in these types of behaviors. Speeding
would be a good example of an act that is technically criminal but does not result in labeling as
such. Furthermore, many would view recreational
marijuana use as another example. Secondary
deviance, however, is deviance that occurs as a
response to society’s reaction of the individual
engaging in the behavior as deviant. This type of
deviance, unlike primary deviance, has major
implications for a person’s status and ­relationships
in society and is a direct result of the internalization of the deviant label. This pathway from primary deviance to secondary deviance or acceptance
as normal is illustrated as follows:
primary deviance → others label act as
deviant → actor internalizes deviant label →
secondary deviance
Theoretical Contributions
There are three major theoretical directions to
labeling theory, including Bruce Link’s modified
labeling theory, John Braithwaite’s reintegrative
shaming, and Ross L. Matsueda and Karen
Heimer’s differential social control.
Link’s Modified Labeling Theory
Link’s modified labeling theory (2001) expanded
the original framework of labeling theory to
include a five-stage process of labeling. The stages
of his model include the extent to which people
believe that mental patients will be devalued and
discriminated against by other members of the
community, the time period by which people are
officially labeled by treatment agencies, when the
patient responds to labeling through secrecy, withdrawal, or education, the negative consequences to
this individual’s life that were brought about as a
result of labeling, and the final stage of vulnerability to future deviance as a result of the effects of
labeling.
Braithwaite’s Reintegrative Shaming Theory
The theory of reintegrative shaming, by John
Braithwaite (1989), examines the difference
between stigmatization of the individual and
reintegrative shaming, or encouragement to stop
the behavior without labeling and stigmatizing
the individual in society. This theory essentially
posits that reintegrative shaming will reduce
crime, unlike stigmatization, which, according to
­labeling ­theory, essentially increases it by encouraging future deviance. The framework behind
this ­theory is that individuals, after committing
an act deemed as criminal or delinquent, will be
shamed by society for that act and then reaccepted back into society without a permanent
label of “not normal,” “deviant,” or “criminal.”
Furthermore, a second concept of this theory is
the notion of restorative justice, or making
amends for wrong actions with those who were
Labeling Theory —443
affected by the behavior. The argument driving
this theory is the notion that reintegrative shaming demonstrates that a behavior is wrong without hurting the individual accused of that
behavior. Rather, society encourages the individual to make up for what he or she has done, show
remorse for the choice of behavior, and learn
from the mistake. Under this theory, society
teaches its members and then readily accepts
them back into the group without permanent
labels or stigmas attached. Essentially, society
forgives.
Matsueda and Heimer’s
Differential Social Control Theory
Matsueda and Heimer’s theory (1992) returns
to a symbolic interactionist perspective, arguing
that a symbolic interactionist theory of delinquency provides a theory of self- and social control that explains all components, including
labeling, secondary deviance, and primary deviance. This theory relies on the concept of role tak­
ing, a concept that illustrates how individuals
reflect on their behavior, how they are able to put
themselves in the shoes of others in order to view
the situation or behavior from the other’s standpoint, and how they evaluate alternative actions
that would be more acceptable and not seem as
inappropriate in the eyes of others. Heimer and
Matsueda expanded this notion to include the
term differential social control, which emphasizes
that social control through role taking can take a
conventional direction or a criminal direction
because the acceptable courses of actions by peers
may not necessarily be conventional or nondeviant courses of action.
Recent Directions in Labeling Theory
Several articles published in the past few years
have examined the effects of labeling in
­adolescents. This literature further examines the
­concept of stigma and the role that power plays
in labeling an individual. This literature further
examines the problems associated with labeling
and stigmatizing individuals, including status
loss, stereotyping, and discrimination. Also
more recently examined have been measures for
perceived labeling. This literature suggests that
adolescents who perceive more deviant labels
than positive ones for themselves are more likely
to engage in delinquency.
Criticisms of Labeling Theory
There are many criticisms that have been raised
about traditional labeling theory. Labeling theory prospered throughout the 1960s, bringing
about policy changes such as deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and juvenile diversion
programs; however, it came under attack in the
mid-1970s as a result of criticism by conflict
theorists and positivists for ignoring the concept
of deviance; these theorists believed that deviance does exist and that secondary deviance was
a useless concept for sociologists. This criticism
has survived and continues to haunt labeling
theorists today because of the recent empirical
evidence on the theory. Two main hypotheses
have been identified through these empirical
tests, including the status characteristics hypothesis and the secondary deviance hypothesis. The
status characteristics hypothesis explains how
individual attributes affect the choice of who is
and who is not labeled, and the secondary devi­
ance hypothesis argues that negative labels cause
future deviance.
Labeling theory predicts that labeling will
vary by status characteristics even when controlling for previous deviant behavior. The criticism, however, stems from the fact that labeling
theory does not require that status characteristics are the most important determinant of
labeling.
Secondary deviance implies a long, causal chain
of events, including negative labels, objective and
perceived opportunities, and deviant self-images.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that
some groups may be more vulnerable than others
to these events. The literature in this area has not
provided support for or contradicted labeling
theory, as it simply focuses on future deviance
­without thoroughly examining the process. Most
research conducted on labeling theory appears to
simply take for granted that this process is a
given; however, it is problematic to assume it as
such without proper empirical support. This is
a key point that ties this theory back into literature on race and crime; some individuals are more
444
Latina/o Criminology
vulnerable to the label and therefore more susceptible to the problems that occur as a result of
being stigmatized.
Sherry Lynn Skaggs
See also At-Risk Youth; Focal Concerns Theory, Labeling;
Juvenile Crime; Recidivism; Restorative Justice
Further Readings
Adams, M. S., Robertson, C. T., Gray-Ray, P., & Ray,
M. C. (2003). Labeling and delinquency. Adolescence,
38, 149.
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders. New York: The Free Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective
and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing
stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.
Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental
labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic
interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology,
97, 1577–1611.
Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, K. (1987). Race, family
structure and delinquency: A test of differential
association and social control theories. American
Sociological Review, 52, 826–840.
Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (2001). Explaining
criminals and crime. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community.
Boston: Ginn.
Vold, G., Bernard, T., & Snipes, J. (2002). Theoretical
criminology (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Latina/o Criminology
The incorporation of Latinas and Latinos in
criminological research is important because the
Latina/o population is now the second largest
group in the United States. It is also important to
include Latinos since there are considerable race
and ethnic disparities in violence across the
nation. For example, Latinos were 3 times more
likely than non-Latina/o Whites to be a victim
of homicide but almost 3 times less likely than
Blacks to be killed. National crime victimization
surveys indicate that Latinos and Blacks were victims of robbery at similarly high rates, but,
Latinos were victims of aggravated assault at a
level in line with Whites and Blacks. These differences are a reminder that criminological research
on racial and ethnic variations in crime must
incorporate Latinos and consider variations within
Latina/o groups in order to fully understand
group differences in criminal and delinquent
behavior. This entry outlines the contours of
Latina/o violent crime and serious delinquent
behavior research.
National Victimization Survey
The primary source of survey-based crime data
in the United States is the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS), a nationally representative study of person and household victimization administered by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Unlike the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which
is regarded as the primary source of official crime
data in the United States, the NCVS records the
race (White, Black, or Other) and Hispanic origin
of the victim (Hispanic or non-Hispanic). The
incorporation of ethnicity in the NCVS permits
estimates of both racial and ethnic differences in
crime or criminal victimization and makes this
survey probably the leading source of Hispanic or
Latina/o crime across the United States.
Other researchers have noted that racial and
ethnic disparities are usually not as heightened in
the NCVS as they are in official police crime statistics; that is probably the case for most types of
serious criminal victimization. For example,
Latinos are more likely to be victims of robbery
than are non-Hispanics, and the Black robbery
victim rate is in line with that of Hispanics.
Victimization differences between Latinos and
other racial/ethnic group members for other types
of violent crime are usually minor, but Latinos are
more likely to be victims of aggravated assault
than are Whites.
Information regarding gender disparities in
Latina/o crime is scarce, and violent crime research
on Latinas is in even shorter supply, but the NCVS
has demonstrated that some gender differences
in violence exist. There are obvious disparities