Interactionist views on crime:
Intro:
Interactionism is based on the concept that no act is criminal or
deviant in itself, but rather crime and deviance are social
constructions
Unlike, Marxism or Functionalism, it is a micro approach as rather
than studying the structures of the society as a whole, it looks at
interactions between social groups and the effects an individual’s
behaviour can have on their identity
Becker summarises the main belief of Interactionists: “Deviance is
not the quantity of the act that the person commits, but rather a
consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to
an ‘offender’”
Point 1: Agents of control and their labelling
AO2:
Interactionism focuses on how agencies of control i.e. the
government and media, are able to impose definitions of
conventional morality on others and, as a result, carry out most of
the labelling in society
By understanding the process of labelling, we can understand the
nature of deviance itself. For instance, Wilkins was interested in the
ramifications of creating a deviant identity and integrating it into a
person’s daily life, and suggested the outcome of this process was
what he called the “Deviancy Amplification Spiral”
This explained the unintended consequences that occur as a result
of agencies of control provoking more deviant behaviour by labelling
such behaviour as deviant
It begins with primary deviance, where people or social groups are
identified as deviant by the media, and this leads to realisation and
alienation, as the label “deviant” given to a group causes them to
be stigmatised by mainstream society
This increased the societal reaction as people in positions of
authority become moral entrepreneurs - they choose what is morally
acceptable - which leads to public overreaction as they see the
“deviant” group to be more of a problem than they actually are
As a result, this creates secondary deviance, as the “deviants” see
themselves are being part of the deviant subculture with different
norms to that of society
The social reaction that develops from this generates a moral panic,
which encourages agencies of control such as the police to clamp
down on behaviours seen as part of the deviant subculture
Rather than decrease the amount of deviance, it increases as the
labelled group develop deviant careers and become even more
resistant to change
His findings can be supported by Mead’s work, as he suggested that
we all have an internal dialogue between our personal view of
ourselves and what we think others see when they deal with us
, We become aware of how we are judged because we can see how
others
respond, and so we adjust our behaviours to each new situation we
find ourselves in
An example of deviancy amplification is the 2011 riots in London,
which began in one area but quickly spread to other countries due
to the reporting of it on 24-hour news broadcasts
AO3:
However, Wilkins can be criticised for his focus on a relatively
limited range of behaviours, and Marxists such as Gordon argue
other forms of crime i.e. white-collar crimes committed by the
bourgeoisie are missing from his analysis
Instead, he focuses too much on the proletariat crimes without
acknowledging they commit crimes to cope with capitalist norms
Whilst Wilkins’ research is beneficial as begins from the assumption
that no act is intrinsically criminal, the Interactionist view on crime
and deviance overlooks the impact of crime on its victims
Point 2: Social control/its impact on crime and deviance
AO2:
Interactionism defines crime and deviance as social constructions as
they are the product of interactions between suspects and agencies
of control such as the police, rather than due to wider external social
factors, such as blocked opportunities as Functionalists would
maintain
An example of this would be the study of the “Mods and Rockers”,
carried out by Cohen, which used the concept of deviancy
amplification. From the start, when these groups were interviewed,
the media exaggerated and distorted their identities, creating a
moral panic towards what was a trivial form of deviance.
For instance, the media only broadcast their arrests/fights and
despite only causing £200 initial damage, newspapers labelled them
as “wild ones”
This led to moral entrepreneurs such as police denouncing their
“criminal” behaviour and arresting more youths whom they’d
labelled “criminals”
Demonising the Mods and Rockers as “folk devils” (those who pose a
threat to conventional values) marginalised them further, and so
they formed a deviant subculture and developed master statuses,
resulting in more deviance as they saw this as part of their identity
Like Cohen’s study, Young’s 1971 study of hippy marijuana users
illustrates this self-fulfilling prophecy.
Drug use was initially peripheral to the users’ lifestyles (primary
deviance) but police persecution of them as “junkies” (societal
reaction) led them to retreat into deviant subcultures where drug
use became a central activity
In these examples, the control processes aimed at producing law
abiding behaviour thus produced the opposite. Despite this, it can
be argued that individuals have the potential to assume a deviant
Intro:
Interactionism is based on the concept that no act is criminal or
deviant in itself, but rather crime and deviance are social
constructions
Unlike, Marxism or Functionalism, it is a micro approach as rather
than studying the structures of the society as a whole, it looks at
interactions between social groups and the effects an individual’s
behaviour can have on their identity
Becker summarises the main belief of Interactionists: “Deviance is
not the quantity of the act that the person commits, but rather a
consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to
an ‘offender’”
Point 1: Agents of control and their labelling
AO2:
Interactionism focuses on how agencies of control i.e. the
government and media, are able to impose definitions of
conventional morality on others and, as a result, carry out most of
the labelling in society
By understanding the process of labelling, we can understand the
nature of deviance itself. For instance, Wilkins was interested in the
ramifications of creating a deviant identity and integrating it into a
person’s daily life, and suggested the outcome of this process was
what he called the “Deviancy Amplification Spiral”
This explained the unintended consequences that occur as a result
of agencies of control provoking more deviant behaviour by labelling
such behaviour as deviant
It begins with primary deviance, where people or social groups are
identified as deviant by the media, and this leads to realisation and
alienation, as the label “deviant” given to a group causes them to
be stigmatised by mainstream society
This increased the societal reaction as people in positions of
authority become moral entrepreneurs - they choose what is morally
acceptable - which leads to public overreaction as they see the
“deviant” group to be more of a problem than they actually are
As a result, this creates secondary deviance, as the “deviants” see
themselves are being part of the deviant subculture with different
norms to that of society
The social reaction that develops from this generates a moral panic,
which encourages agencies of control such as the police to clamp
down on behaviours seen as part of the deviant subculture
Rather than decrease the amount of deviance, it increases as the
labelled group develop deviant careers and become even more
resistant to change
His findings can be supported by Mead’s work, as he suggested that
we all have an internal dialogue between our personal view of
ourselves and what we think others see when they deal with us
, We become aware of how we are judged because we can see how
others
respond, and so we adjust our behaviours to each new situation we
find ourselves in
An example of deviancy amplification is the 2011 riots in London,
which began in one area but quickly spread to other countries due
to the reporting of it on 24-hour news broadcasts
AO3:
However, Wilkins can be criticised for his focus on a relatively
limited range of behaviours, and Marxists such as Gordon argue
other forms of crime i.e. white-collar crimes committed by the
bourgeoisie are missing from his analysis
Instead, he focuses too much on the proletariat crimes without
acknowledging they commit crimes to cope with capitalist norms
Whilst Wilkins’ research is beneficial as begins from the assumption
that no act is intrinsically criminal, the Interactionist view on crime
and deviance overlooks the impact of crime on its victims
Point 2: Social control/its impact on crime and deviance
AO2:
Interactionism defines crime and deviance as social constructions as
they are the product of interactions between suspects and agencies
of control such as the police, rather than due to wider external social
factors, such as blocked opportunities as Functionalists would
maintain
An example of this would be the study of the “Mods and Rockers”,
carried out by Cohen, which used the concept of deviancy
amplification. From the start, when these groups were interviewed,
the media exaggerated and distorted their identities, creating a
moral panic towards what was a trivial form of deviance.
For instance, the media only broadcast their arrests/fights and
despite only causing £200 initial damage, newspapers labelled them
as “wild ones”
This led to moral entrepreneurs such as police denouncing their
“criminal” behaviour and arresting more youths whom they’d
labelled “criminals”
Demonising the Mods and Rockers as “folk devils” (those who pose a
threat to conventional values) marginalised them further, and so
they formed a deviant subculture and developed master statuses,
resulting in more deviance as they saw this as part of their identity
Like Cohen’s study, Young’s 1971 study of hippy marijuana users
illustrates this self-fulfilling prophecy.
Drug use was initially peripheral to the users’ lifestyles (primary
deviance) but police persecution of them as “junkies” (societal
reaction) led them to retreat into deviant subcultures where drug
use became a central activity
In these examples, the control processes aimed at producing law
abiding behaviour thus produced the opposite. Despite this, it can
be argued that individuals have the potential to assume a deviant
