Labelling theorists are micro sociologists who take an action approach,
looking at small scale interactions. They believe that small scale
interactions, like labelling, can shape the rest of society.
A useful contribution made by labelling theorists (LT) is the idea that there
is differential enforcement of the law. Pilavin and Briar argue that the
police decide who to arrest based on stereotypical ideas about factors like
dress, ethnicity and social class. More patrols of deprived areas mean
more of their offending will be uncovered. Similarly, Cicourel argues that
these typifications can lead to a negotiation of justice. He found that MC
people are often able to escape with a caution because they do not fit the
image of the typical delinquent. They were able to use capital to escape
justice. For example, a middle-class parent would use elaborated code to
communicate with the middle-class criminal justice system and build a
rapport with police neutralising their son’s behaviour as a one-time
transgression that will not be repeated. Their social capital or contacts
means they can access the best lawyers paid for with their economic
capital. This helps them de-label their offences and means middle-class
crime rarely appears in crime statistics. Therefore, LT is useful as it
provides us with an insight into why certain groups, such as the working
class and ethnic minorities are statistically more likely to commit crime-
because they are more readily labelled as deviant. However, LT fails to
explain the root of labels and the negotiation of justice. Marxists say this
is explained by the inequality of capitalism – the police label the working
class because this performs as an ideological function. Over policing the
working class and allowing middle class to escape prosecution sustains
the myth that crime is a working-class problem- this is a ‘divide and rule’
approach to prevent opposition to the ruling class. Therefore, LT is limited
in explaining crime and deviance because it sees it as a small-scale
approach, ignoring the role of the structure of capitalist society in shaping
the labelling process.
Becker recognises that crime and deviance are socially constructed- no
act in itself is criminal or deviant. Rather, someone only becomes deviant
because the state creates laws and can criminalise them. For example,
until 1967 homosexuality was a crime in the UK. It was then
decriminalised but continued to be seen as a deviant lifestyle, while now it
is socially acceptable. Thus Becker highlights the power of labels in
creating crime and deviance. Young argues are labelling can lead to a
self-fulfilling prophecy. He studied marijuana smokers, in Notting Hill, who
were hippies. He smoked occasionally-it was peripheral to their lifestyle.
The police then labelled them as junkies and targeted them for arrest and
prosecution. This marginalised them and then they became a more
secretive and deviant subculture, smoking more frequently to cope with
looking at small scale interactions. They believe that small scale
interactions, like labelling, can shape the rest of society.
A useful contribution made by labelling theorists (LT) is the idea that there
is differential enforcement of the law. Pilavin and Briar argue that the
police decide who to arrest based on stereotypical ideas about factors like
dress, ethnicity and social class. More patrols of deprived areas mean
more of their offending will be uncovered. Similarly, Cicourel argues that
these typifications can lead to a negotiation of justice. He found that MC
people are often able to escape with a caution because they do not fit the
image of the typical delinquent. They were able to use capital to escape
justice. For example, a middle-class parent would use elaborated code to
communicate with the middle-class criminal justice system and build a
rapport with police neutralising their son’s behaviour as a one-time
transgression that will not be repeated. Their social capital or contacts
means they can access the best lawyers paid for with their economic
capital. This helps them de-label their offences and means middle-class
crime rarely appears in crime statistics. Therefore, LT is useful as it
provides us with an insight into why certain groups, such as the working
class and ethnic minorities are statistically more likely to commit crime-
because they are more readily labelled as deviant. However, LT fails to
explain the root of labels and the negotiation of justice. Marxists say this
is explained by the inequality of capitalism – the police label the working
class because this performs as an ideological function. Over policing the
working class and allowing middle class to escape prosecution sustains
the myth that crime is a working-class problem- this is a ‘divide and rule’
approach to prevent opposition to the ruling class. Therefore, LT is limited
in explaining crime and deviance because it sees it as a small-scale
approach, ignoring the role of the structure of capitalist society in shaping
the labelling process.
Becker recognises that crime and deviance are socially constructed- no
act in itself is criminal or deviant. Rather, someone only becomes deviant
because the state creates laws and can criminalise them. For example,
until 1967 homosexuality was a crime in the UK. It was then
decriminalised but continued to be seen as a deviant lifestyle, while now it
is socially acceptable. Thus Becker highlights the power of labels in
creating crime and deviance. Young argues are labelling can lead to a
self-fulfilling prophecy. He studied marijuana smokers, in Notting Hill, who
were hippies. He smoked occasionally-it was peripheral to their lifestyle.
The police then labelled them as junkies and targeted them for arrest and
prosecution. This marginalised them and then they became a more
secretive and deviant subculture, smoking more frequently to cope with
