Labeling Theory Labeling Theory Background Immensely popular during the 1960s Social disillusionment and change in the U S Failure of the New Deal promises made but not kept Questioning government accountability Subjectivity of morality decline of the consensus model Less focus on the individual Labeling Paradigm Crime as a question of social definitions social construction of crime Society is not stable or made up of a consensus of beliefs societies are conflict oriented Considered a societal reaction theoretical approach Frank Tannenbaum First labeling theorist 1893 1969 Served one year in prison for unlawful assembly during the unemployment unrest of 1913 Believed prisons did not serve to reintegrate people and in fact created more problems Tannenbaum By labeling individuals are delinquents or criminals and by reacting to them in a punitive way the community encourages these individuals to redefine themselves in accordance with community definitions Dramatization of evil 1938 Tannenbaum A change in self concept occurs criminal Tannenbaum Self fulfilling prophecy Individuals become what others say that they are Even if they act good in the future their goodness will not be believed Once stigmatized they find it extremely difficult to be free of the label of delinquent or Criticized mainly for timing tensions mounting in Europe with Hitler and Mussolini not a good time to criticize government before his time criminal acts associated with the individual s acquired status as a criminal Edwin Lemert 1951 1972 1912 1996 Founder of societal reaction paradigm Primary deviance initial criminal act Secondary deviance and his her ultimate acceptance of it Lemert 1 Primary deviance initial act 2 Social penalties 3 Further primary deviance 4 Stronger penalties and rejections Lemert 6 Stigmatizing of the deviant 8 Acceptance of the deviant social status 9 Secondary deviance occurs Howard S Becker 1963 Founder of labeling theory Born in 1928 Chicago School 7 Strengthening of the deviant as a result of the stigmatizing 5 Further deviance with an increase in hostility and resentment toward those doing the penalizing The creation of rules and their enforcement is not necessarily a universally agreed upon Outsiders Studies in the Sociology of Deviance 1963 phenomenon Becker Law creators and law enforcers are moral entrepreneurs who believe that society is the victim of various social problems that in their judgment could be corrected only through their political action Moral entrepreneurs often believe that they have taken society s best interests into consideration create and enforce rules that label particular individuals as outsiders Becker Becker deviants 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 From this point of view deviance is not a quality of the act a person commits but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules or sanctions to an offender The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied deviant behavior is behavior that people so label Being a criminal becomes a person s master status secondary to any other status Public scrutiny leads to identity change deviant self image association with similarly labeled Studies show a lower class bias Boys will be boys versus delinquent label Becker Four types of behavior Conformist obedient behavior not perceived as deviant Falsely accused obedient behavior perceived as deviant Pure deviant rule breaking behavior perceived as deviant Secret deviant rule breaking behavior not perceived as deviant Empirical testing is difficult to conduct main criticisms center on the issue of testability Criticisms of Labeling Theory Simplistic view of behavior causation More of a perspective than a theory Criticisms of Labeling Theory Never really explains the origins of deviant behavior Doesn t really explain white collar or corporate crime or violent offenses No systematic analysis of female criminality Support for Labeling Theory Recent studies have found that labeling theory does support SOME elements of crime and deviance For example research has shown that because of the stigma surrounding being mentally ill some people avoid treatment and keep their problem a secret Another example because of the stigma surrounding convicted felons and associated problems seeking employment and starting a new life recidivism rates are skyrocketing Modern Labeling Theory Shift in mid 1970s focus on sociology of law legalistic definitions of crime Study of law as a mechanism of social control focus on state control Critique of underdog focus Liazos 1972 need to stop studying nuts sluts and perverts Value of Labeling Theory Crime and deviance is socially constructed Criminal justice policy and state intervention may have unintended and even contradictory Significant precursor to future criminological theory conflict feminist radical consequences Value of Labeling Theory Focus on the complexities surrounding the creation and enforcement of criminal law Although not meeting the criteria of scientific theory significant impact on criminological thought shaming Braithwaite s Theory of Reintegrative Shaming 1989 Considered to be an integrative theory labeling control subcultural differential association strain and social learning Central proposition crime rates of individuals and groups are influenced directly by processes of High crime rates result from shaming that stigmatizes because rule breakers who are shamed and not forgiven are more likely to become outlaws and to participate in subcultures of crime When rule breakers are shamed but forgiven and welcomed back into the fold the punitive and unpleasant experience of being shamed is offset by the pleasant relief of discovering that one is still accepted loved wanted and cared about reintegrative shaming Reintegrative Shaming Reintegrative Shaming As a mechanism of social control shaming works best among closely connected people families friends colleagues co workers Most of us will care less about what a judge who we meet only once in our lives thinks of us then we will care about the esteem in which we are held by a neighbor we see regularly Reintegrative Shaming Absent the close ties of interdependency people are less likely to be exposed to or affected by shaming They are more susceptible to crime because their controls are weak It should come as no surprise