Analysis Of Criticisms Of Labeling Theory

Analysis Of Criticisms Of Labeling Theory

Instructions/Descriptions

Analysis Of Criticisms Of Labeling Theory

[Order Now]

THEORIES OF CRIME.6
 CR 4550 Dr. Lee Blackstone

What’s in a name?

Labeling Theory

Labeling Theory

[Order Now]

Do labels inevitably produce a deviant way of life? Labeling theorists have said that this is ‘too simplistic’; however, there is a deterministic element to labeling theory. The implication is that a person’s behavior is PROFOUNDLY shaped by the ways in which people react to him/her.

Labeling Theory

Deviance is more likely to occur when those who do the labeling are amongst the FORMAL AGENTS of society: those empowered to enforce legal/social norms.

When given a label from those with power and authority, labeling theory argues that the individual has little power to resist the label, or to negotiate his or her identification with it.

Labeling Theory

Frank Tannenbaum (1893-1969)

Tannenbaum provided an earlier description of labeling in 1938. Emphasis was placed on labeling as a cause of continuing deviance.

Labeling Theory

“The first dramatization of the ‘evil’ which separates the child out of his group…plays a greater role in making the criminal than perhaps any other experience…He now lives in a different world. He has been

tagged…The person becomes the thing he is described as being.” (Tannenbaum 12:1938)

Labeling Theory

Howard Becker: “One of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behavior is likely to be the experience of being caught and publicly labeled as a deviant.” (Outsiders, 1963)

Labeling Theory

Becker did make the point that the process of labeling was part of an interaction process that could lead in other directions. It was possible that the label could have the intended effect, and stop a behavior.

Labeling Theory Still: a CORE position of the theory is that labeling people, and punishing them, increases or AMPLIFIES deviance, instead of decreasing it. Stigmatization leads to ‘playing out’ the deviant role, and the development of a deviant self-concept.

Labeling Theory

This step is crucial!

Labeling Theory: Secondary Deviance

Edwin Lemert (1912-1996) wrote about the concept of SECONDARY DEVIANCE: “A special class of socially defined responses which people make to problems created by the societal reaction to their deviance.” (40-41:1967)

Labeling Theory: Secondary Deviance

Secondary deviance is produced when deviants engage in additional deviant behavior, which they would not otherwise have done IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN LABELED AS DEVIANT.

Sometimes, the prohibition of certain behaviors may create a demand for certain types of deviance, too – such as bans on drug use, gambling, and prostitution. A ‘black market’ may be created to service such desires.

Labeling Theory

Both Becker (1973) and Lemert (1974) would claim that they did not mean to propose a ‘whole’ theory of deviant and criminal behavior. They stated that they meant to provide ‘sensitizing’ concepts as to why someone might

become a deviant, or a criminal.

Nonetheless, the theory has maintained from its beginning that people take on deviant identities and roles because they are hugely influenced, if not coerced, into acting in accordance with labels that are attached to them.

Criticisms of Labeling Theory

There have been questions concerning: The theory’s disregard for the actual behavior of the deviant/criminal The idea that the label serves to ‘coerce’ a person into a deviant identity and role Whether people just ‘accept’ a label, and do not fight back against it

Criticisms of Labeling Theory

Does a label CREATE a behavior?

Or do other factors influence a.) the continuation of deviance; b.) maintaining a deviant self- concept; and c.) stabilizing into a ‘deviant career’?

Criticisms of Labeling Theory

Not focusing on other causes of behavior is a result of labeling theory’s concern with the power of official labelers to single out some people against whom labels are used…and the supposed powerlessness of the people being labeled to resist.

Criticisms of Labeling Theory

[Order Now]

The assumption in Labeling Theory is that what a person has done is NOT important – what is important is who the person IS. But is this correct?

Criticisms of Labeling Theory

SOCIETY DOESN’T IDENTIFY, TAG, AND SANCTION PEOPLE ‘IN A VACUUM’: by and large, people tend to be labeled on the basis of overt acts that they have committed (or are believed to have committed).

The deviant behavior may exist PRIOR to the label, and form the basis for such labeling.

Actually – there has not been much! Labeling Theory makes a lot of ‘intuitive’ sense, perhaps. But the theory would propose that PRIMARY DEVIANCE is unstable, unfocused, and sporadic. Only some of those who break the law are detected and labeled by formal authorities…in which case, they may form a DEVIANT SELF-CONCEPT and settle into SECONDARY DEVIANCE and a ‘DEVIANT CAREER.’

Empirical Support for Labeling Theory

Criticisms of Labeling Theory

IF the labeling can be AVOIDED: the idea is that the deviant is NOT likely to develop a serious, stabilized criminal career.

But there are few actual findings to support this.

The proposition from the theory is that the formal control system ironically makes the crime problem WORSE by labeling people. As a result – especially with juveniles – labeling theorists would argue that THE BEST CONTROL SYSTEM IS ONE THAT CONTROLS PEOPLE THE LEAST.

How would labeling theorists handle crime?

Juvenile Diversion Movement

Hence…whenever possible, juveniles should not be processed in the justice system. In the 1970s, the idea took hold for ‘juvenile diversion’ programs: programs which would train kids to make better decisions, serve in the community, and to improve their communications skills.

If the juvenile gets into trouble: she/he can still be brought back into court.

(And: in 1974: juveniles taken out of adult prisons, but this has been imperfectly applied.) While such diversion programs still exist, there is also a current

going in the other direction: more punitive measures against juveniles.

Radical Non-Intervention

Edwin Schur (1973) believed that it was better for communities to tolerate the behavior of minor

offenders – rather than risk making youth more serious deviants by formally labeling them. In this

sense, he was an influence on the juvenile diversion movement.

Schur did not believe that delinquency and crime was strictly a

‘lower-class’ phenomenon – something that we will see is a departure from classic theories

concerning juvenile delinquency.

“Net Widening”

Diversion programs have sometimes resulted in ‘net widening’ – where MORE, rather than fewer, juveniles are placed under control in the community, just because the policy exists.

Programs designed for youth come to rely on more juveniles being ‘sent through’ to them, which keeps their programs going.

Modifying Labeling Theory

John Braithwaite, in Crime, Shame, and Integration (1989), offered the idea of REINTEGRATIVE SHAMING. Braithwaite views shaming as SOCIAL DISAPPROVAL – which should a.) make the person feel ashamed, and b.) make others condemn the person’s action once they are aware of what the person has done. NOT the same as ‘stigmatization.’ Braithwaite thought that stigmatization was a kind of ‘DISINTEGRATIVE SHAMING’ – where there is NO attempt to bring the shamed offender back into the community.

Reintegrative Shaming

Reintegrative shaming, on the other hand, seeks to bring people back into ‘respectable’ society… Through gestures of forgiveness, or some kind of ceremony. The idea is to ‘DECERTIFY’ the offender as a deviant person! to help bring about lower crime rates Still…a kind of labeling, but done ‘informally’

Communitarianism

Braithwaite would support the idea of ‘communitarianism,’ which is that communities help to shape individuals The goal is to find ways of shaming, which would create genuine remorse in offenders, and then have them rejoin the community

Restorative Justice Movement

Restorative justice involves others (the victim, the victim’s family, one’s own family, teachers, etc.) to try and decide what could be done in individual cases. Such

models are grounded in ‘reintegrative shaming’ theory.

Faith-Based Religious Programs

‘Faith based’ prison programs also either implicitly, or explictly, have principles that reflect restorative justice and reintegrative shaming.

Such programs seem somewhat effective at decreasing disciplinary problems; but, it is not known how effective such programs are at reducing recidivism overall once prisoners are released.

In Conclusion…

Only Labeling Theory – derived from Symbolic Interactionism – treats the stigmatizing label as being so important to continued crime or deviance.

Revisions to Labeling Theory that result in a kind of ‘informal labeling’ through symbolic interaction (instead of the formal model through the justice system) might lead to more

empirical support for the theory.

[Order Now]

Still, the most biting critique of Labeling Theory has to do with whether the label is the result, or the cause, of deviant behavior.

Assignment

Shakespeare Behind Bars depicts an unusual prison program, which allows prisoners to discover more about themselves through participating in a Shakespearean theater

production at the Luther Luckett prison facility in Kentucky.

How can you apply Control Theories, Social Bonding Theory, and Social Learning Theories to this program?

You may discuss particular prisoners, and their relationship to each other, the 4 pages,

typed and double-spaced.

CITATIONS MUST BE UTILIZED.

Shakespeare Behind Bars. Film by Hank Rogerson and Jilann Spitzmiller. Philomath Films. 2006.

Analysis Of Criticisms Of Labeling Theory

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!