“Deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’.
Labelling Theory
When theorists discuss labelling theory, they are paying attention to individuals or groups labelled as criminal and how that label effects their interaction with society from that point on. The sub-field of criminology builds on the theory of interactionism; the study of how humans shape society and society shapes humans through as a result of interactions.
Labelling theory was first introduced by Tannenbaum’s ‘dramatisation of evil’ concept in 1938, he proposed a link between how society perceives and describes an individual and the individuals actions. In 1951, building on this came Erwin Lamert and his “Societal Reaction” theory. He split the labelling process into a primary and secondary phase. The primary phase being the initial criminal act, the second phase beginning at the point the offender internalises the “deviant” label.
Lamert’s model suggests that offenders could choose to not internalise the “deviant” label. Through internal justification of their actions an offender could rationalise their offences, justifying action by their necessity for example, and continue to exist in the primary stage. The author suggests that this model supports Becker’s position, in that Lambert proposes the deviant label is created by society’s actions towards the offender, like Becker, and also suggests that the deviant label requires an internalisation of the label after the state and society has placed it on the offender.
The ‘Deviant’
When outlining his take on labelling theory, Becker claims that those labelled as a “deviant” are led to engage in behaviour befitting their “deviant” label. A question this essay is exploring is to what degree it is the response by others rather than the initial commission of an offence which causes the perpetrator to internalise the deviant label and begin to act within its prescription.
Beckers posits that, as crime is a social construct, society creates deviants through state intervention, via the legal system. It is an offenders interaction, post-offence, with the legal system and its sanctions which causes society to place the “deviant” label on the offender. This position is supported by the research of Cicourel. His work suggests that labelling, consequently justice, is applied selectively as per the stereotype led bias held by the agents enforcing, adjudicating and applying the law.
Selective application of labels
Cicourel’s work states that, while two people, a working class and a middle class individual, may commit a similar crime, a working class person is far more likely to find themselves labelled as a deviant by police. The stereotypes which influence application and enforcement are based on appearance and language, not the deviant act. A study by Pilliavan and Briar in 1964 substantiate this further, they found police will selectively arrest and label youths, based on their appearance when they were seen loitering. The work of Cicourel, Pilliavan and Briar, and Becker present worldview which sees the state’s enforcement of law as classist and criminogenic. As working class people are more likely to receive a label for a primary act of deviance, a working class person will then find themselves more susceptible to being alienated and frustrated as they are socialised and internalise the “deviant” label. In light of the influence the bourgeoise hold, disproportionate to the size of their demographic, to shape law, norms and the state we result in a society which not only selectively enforces rules primarily against the working class, but also creates laws which benefit the ruling class. Further, mass media is strongly influenced by the ruling class, financially or through the ruling classes role within it’s structures, handing the ruling class the power to present crime as a deviant act as opposed to a natural response to capitalism. Labelling can be a tool of oppression.
The points emphasised by Cicourel and Pilliavan and Briar, comply with Beckers statement in the essay statement and suggests it holds credence. If the label were applied upon the commission of an act then all who committed an offence would receive the label, selective enforcement detailed by research informs us that this is not true. In reality there are no inherently deviant acts, instead acts become deviant when the state intervenes and it’s intervention is selective and biased towards the non-ruling classes. Considering the selective enforcement we see from the state and consequently selective labelling and understanding that, according to Becker, labelling has great effect on the deviant – inclining them towards deviancy amplification and deficiency careers – this is a classist failure of the state.
Critiques of Labelling Theory
Aside from the criticism discussed above, that labels are applied selectively; exacerbating gaps between classes and perpetuating oppressive structures, labelling theory also runs into further critiques from the academic community.
For one, labeling theory requires a deterministic perspective. Determinism precludes the concept of free will, stating that human behaviour is as it is because it is as it must be, for humans cannot act otherwise. Determinism surfaces in Becker’s theory as labelling proposes that a deviants offence is pre-determined by pre-existing causes, the deviant label, when, in reality, not all bona fide deviants will accept their label of deviant and act within it’s prescription. Labelling theory also works on the understanding that perpetrators of crime are passive in their action. The author submits that personal choice plays a role in any action a person makes, something which is not represented fully in labelling theory.
A further failing of Labelling theory is when a crime is viewed through its lens it gives the perpetrator of a crime the status of victim-hood, painting them as a victim of society’s actions towards them. While the offender may indeed be a victim of their environment and socialisation, labeling theory places the true victim of a crime to the wayside.
The theory also creates a negative image of labels in general, with its focus on the deviant label and its potential train of action. Labels can have positive effect on an individual. One’s perception of themself, the labels they internalise will affect how they are socialised in many ways, positive and negative. Becker fails bring this side of labelling into his work.
Within labelling theory, Becker fails to account for what triggers the initial act of primary deviance, focusing on society’s response to the primary act and secondary deviance. Lemert creates a distinction within labelling between having committed a primary act of deviance and the internalising a label, but also fails to explain why initial acts of defiance occur.
From a structural sociological viewpoint most voices would present crime as a product of deeper structural causes, it is generally accepted that crime does not result purely from interactions and labels, as such labelling theory is insufficient for us to model public policy changes around alone.
However, labelling theory is useful to assist reflection into the role of the state in people’s lives. It posits that the enforcement of law tends to be discriminatory and that crime statistics do not reflect reality. When considering changes to the law, labelling theory reminds us that attempts to restrict behaviour and prevent crime may exacerbate the issues and create crime. With this point in minds, the fact that the agents of social control are the primary causes of crime leads to the natural question of why so much power is being given to them. Lily, Cullen and Ball call this the ‘irony of state intervention’. Labelling theory scratches at the surface of recognising the controlling nature of labelling handled by the powerful in our society.
Conclusion
As labels and crime, indeed reality, can be described as a social construct, created through interaction, it can be argued that labelling theory depicts a classist legal system and society which is shaped and perpetuated by the ruling class. A society which places people who fit certain deviant stereotypes at a disadvantage. Labels can be seen as a form of social control and oppression in a deeply classist society.
If we view our state through the lens of labelling theory, then the legitimacy of state intervention through its categorisation of behaviour, hangs on the gamble that labelling creates less crime than it eliminates and that the creation of law is not unduly influenced by the ruling class to perpetuate their social status and class.
Robert Nesirky 