Labeling theory states that people come to identify and behave in ways that reflect how others label them. This theory is most commonly associated with the sociology of crime since labeling someone unlawfully deviant can lead to poor conduct. Describing someone as a criminal, for example, can cause others to treat the person more negatively, and, in turn, the individual acts out. Show
The Origins of Labeling TheoryThe idea of labeling theory flourished in American sociology during the 1960s, thanks in large part to sociologist Howard Becker. However, its core ideas can be traced back to the work of founding French sociologist Emile Durkheim. American sociologist George Herbert Mead's theory framing social construction of the self as a process involving interactions with others also influenced its development. Scholars Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, Albert Memmi, Erving Goffman, and David Matza played roles in the development and research of labeling theory as well. Labeling and DevianceLabeling theory is one of the most important approaches to understanding deviant and criminal behavior. It begins with the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal. Definitions of criminality are established by those in power through the formulation of laws and the interpretation of those laws by police, courts, and correctional institutions. Deviance is therefore not a set of characteristics of individuals or groups but a process of interaction between deviants and non-deviants and the context in which criminality is interpreted. Police, judges, and educators are the individuals tasked with enforcing standards of normalcy and labeling certain behaviors as deviant in nature. By applying labels to people and creating categories of deviance, these officials reinforce society's power structure. Often, the wealthy define deviancy for the poor, men for women, older people for younger people, and racial or ethnic majority groups for minorities. In other words, society's dominant groups create and apply deviant labels to subordinate groups. Many children, for example, break windows, steal fruit from other people’s trees, climb into neighbors' yards, or skip school. In affluent neighborhoods, parents, teachers, and police regard these behaviors as typical juvenile behavior. But in poor areas, similar conduct might be viewed as signs of juvenile delinquency. This suggests that class plays an important role in labeling. Race is also a factor. Inequality and StigmaResearch shows that schools discipline Black children more frequently and harshly than white children despite a lack of evidence suggesting that the former misbehave more often than the latter. Similarly, police kill Black people at far higher rates than whites, even when African Americans are unarmed and haven't committed crimes. This disparity suggests that racial stereotypes result in the mislabeling of people of color as deviant. Once a person is identified as deviant, it is extremely difficult to remove that label. The individual becomes stigmatized as a criminal and is likely to be considered untrustworthy by others. For example, convicts may struggle to find employment after they're released from prison because of their criminal background. This makes them more likely to internalize the deviant label and, again, engage in misconduct. Even if labeled individuals do not commit any more crimes, they must forever live with the consequences of being formally deemed a wrongdoer. Critiques of Labeling TheoryCritics of labeling theory argue that it ignores factors—such as differences in socialization, attitudes, and opportunities—that lead to deviant acts. They also assert that it's not entirely certain whether labeling increases deviancy. Ex-cons might end up back in prison because they have formed connections to other offenders; these ties raise the odds that they will be exposed to additional opportunities to commit crimes. In all likelihood, both labeling and increased contact with the criminal population contribute to recidivism. Additional References
Edwin M. Lemert distinguishes between primary and secondary deviance. An individual first commits primary deviance. Through a process of labelling the individual is forced to play the role of deviant. As a reaction to this role assignment (“You are criminal!”), the labelled person adapts his behaviour according to the role assigned to him (“Then I am a criminal!”). This behaviour reaction is called secondary deviance.
Main proponentEdwin M. Lemert TheoryIn his book Social Pathology, published in 1951, Lemert developed the concept of secondary deviance. He developed this perspective further in 1967 in his book Human deviance, social problems, and social control. Although Lemert himself preferred the concept of social reaction to labeling, Lemerst’s distinction between primary and secondary deviance is a decisive development in the formulation of labelling theory. Primary DeviancePrimary deviance arises from various socio-cultural and psychological causes. In other words, the term primary deviance describes deviant behaviour that occurs from a cause attributable to the perpetrator. While primary deviance is recognized as undesirable, it has no further effect on the status and self-image of the deviant(s). The deviant does not define himself by deviance, but rationalizes and trivializes it. Thus a positive self-image can be maintained, which goes hand in hand with one’s own role in society. Secondary DevianceSecondary deviance is triggered by reactions that follow the primary deviance. The social reaction to deviant behaviour ensures that the deviant is stigmatised. These social reactions include the deviant being labelled as criminal. However, this label contradicts the self-image of the labelled person and is therefore not role-conform. In order to escape the resulting cognitive dissonance, the individual ultimately adopts the label “deviant” or “criminal” and adapts his or her future behaviour accordingly. For Lemert, the transition from primary to secondary deviance represents a process of development. Increasingly stronger deviance is followed by ever stronger social reactions, which ensure that deviance solidifies. Critical appreciation & relevanceThe approaches of Edwin M. Lemert and Howard S. Becker are certainly among the most influential theories in (critical) criminology. The understanding that punishment and social sanctions can be paradoxical and cause further deviant behaviour has influenced a number of other theories, but labelling theories have also often been subject to criticism since their very inception. In particular, Lemert’s theory can be criticized for not giving enough weight to primary deviance. It is questionable what part of deviant behaviour is really explained by Lemert’s theory. In particular, it seems questionable whether offences that can be characterized as secondary deviance do not only account for a small proportion. This point of criticism is increasingly being raised by advocates of positivist criminology. They often take the view that secondary deviance (if any) can explain only a relatively small proportion of criminal behaviour. For them, however, the question of why people begin to deviate at all is much more interesting. From the other end of the political spectrum, Becker and Lemert’s approaches are criticized for assuming the existence of primary deviance at all. The radical labeling approach according to Fritz Sack, for example, assumes that deviance is ubiquitous. From this perspective, it is solely the process of labelling that is responsible for who we describe as criminal and who not. Another criticism of labelling approaches is that they mostly only refer to certain ‘light’ forms of crime. It is questionable to what extent acts such as murder, rape or war crimes can really be regarded as criminal only because they are labelled as such. It is also questionable what role the aspect of labelling plays in ‘covert’ forms of deviance (e.g. tax evasion, child abuse). Implications for criminal policySince labeling approaches assume that societal reactions to deviant behavior (can) have a reinforcing effect on it, they suggest that these forms of ‘labelling’ interventions should be avoided as far as possible. Decriminalization, alternative conflict resolution models, and de-institutionalization are promising measures to prevent secondary deviance. The most important criminal policy implication of labelling theories is that ‘law and order’ and other intensive and repressive forms of policing can have a paradoxical, unintended effect – i.e. can lead to crime rates rising rather than falling. John Braithwaite and Lawrence Sherman have also addressed the criminal policy implications of labelling theories in their concept of restorative justice. Literature
Further information
Interview with Edwin M. LemertWhat is the labeling theory of deviance crime?Labelling theory argues that criminal and deviant acts are a result of labelling by authorities – and the powerless are more likely to be negatively labelled.
What are the 4 types of deviance?According to Merton, there are five types of deviance based upon these criteria: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion. Merton's typology is fascinating because it suggests that people can turn to deviance in the pursuit of widely accepted social values and goals.
How does labeling lead to secondary deviance?Through a process of labelling the individual is forced to play the role of deviant. As a reaction to this role assignment (“You are criminal!”), the labelled person adapts his behaviour according to the role assigned to him (“Then I am a criminal!”). This behaviour reaction is called secondary deviance.
What is criminal labelling?Labeling theory suggests that people's behavior is influenced by the label attached to them by society [1–4]. This label can be a critical factor to a more persistent criminal life course for individuals who might just be experimenting with delinquent activity.
|
