The labelling perspective (25):
Introduction:
The labelling perspective challenges our view of crime and criminal justice.
According to proponents of this theory, crime is a social process.
It involves different perceptions of what constitutes “good” or “bad” behaviour
and those specific power relationships (e.g. police, courts) that determine what
is deemed to be “deviant” or an offender.
Crime is not an “objective” phenomenon – it is an outcome of specific types of
human interaction between the offender, the victim and the officials of the
criminal justice system.
Basic argument of labelling is that continued crime is the result of limited
opportunities for acceptable behaviour, which is the result of the negative
responses of society to those people defined (labelled) as offenders.
There are 2 variations of labelling theory:
o The interactionist approach, which focuses on self-identification and deals
with the thoughts of the deviant;
o The social response approach, which focuses on the identity of individuals
as attributed to them by others and that deals with the opinions of others,
especially the social agents of control.
The labelling perspective, otherwise known as the societal reactions approach,
became popular in the 1960s. In its application to crime, the labelling theory is
used
to explain why some individuals become criminals; why some crime waves
occur;
why some criminal stereotypes emerge and persist; and why some groups in
society
are more likely to be punished and punished more severely than others.
The labelling theory is based on earlier contributions from Frank Tannenbaum
and
Edwin M. Lemert, despite it only becoming popular in the 1960s. Tannenbaum
Definition of key concept:
Labelling perspective:
Explains criminal behaviour as a reaction to having been labelled as a
delinquent.
When subjects are stigmatised as delinquents, they are frequently driven to act
out a self-fulfilling prophecy (the label “criminal” becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy – the person has little choice but to conform to the essential meaning
of that judgment because he has already been labelled)
In short, labelling pushed violators into a path of future deviance. Labelling
theorist’s asset that those in power place labels on the powerless.
The labelling perspective is also known as the Societal Reaction School.
Interactionist approach:
The interactionist approach states that people will behave according to their own
interpretations of reality, through which they assign meanings to things; people will
observe how others react, either positive or negative; and they proceed to revaluate
, and interpret the way they behave according to the meaning and symbols they have
learned from others.
Lemert’s theory can be described as the “model” of the interactionist approach.
Edwin M Lemert (1912–1996)
The main assumptions of Lemert’s theory are explained by Hunter and Dantzker
(2002:111):
Individuals enter a criminal career after they have been labelled, especially if
the labelling is done by people important to the individual.
Labelling creates a stigma and influences an individual’s self-image.
Labelled individuals see themselves as deviant and will increasingly commit
criminal behaviour.
Lemert focused on the process that leads juveniles to describe themselves as
delinquent. Lemert explained this phenomenon partly by referring to the juvenile’s
social class and interaction with the formal decision-making powers (e.g. the juvenile
court).
He was critical of rehabilitation – in his opinion, such attempts merely encourage
recidivism.
Lemert (White & Haines, 2004:86) developed the concepts of ‘‘primary deviance’’ and
‘‘secondary deviance’’.
Primary deviance
refers to initial deviant behaviour.
An example of this is a person who uses an opportunity to steal an item from a
shop (without being caught) or who drives a car under the influence of alcohol
(without being caught).
These actions are regarded as wrong, but the person (offender) is not seen as a
bad person or labelled as deviant by others because he or she has not been
caught.
Lemert does not attach much value to primary deviance, because the person’s
self -image is not damaged in the process.
There is no change in identity, and deviance is seen as nothing more than a
passing event.
Secondary deviance
refers to the phase when a person’s deviant behaviour is repeated regularly, is
visible, and is the subject of social reaction (punitive measures).
The offender is now stigmatised and labelled as a bad person.
It is possible that the offender may act in a way that shows acceptance of the
new deviant label (e.g. ‘‘thief’’ or ‘‘criminal’’).
However, not all people who have been labelled, assume these roles. Some offenders
resist labelling by denying or downplaying the seriousness of their actions (Walsh &
Ellis, 2007:127).
The labelling perspective emphasises the process of labelling and does not see
deviance as a state of being, but as an outcome of social interaction.
Social response approach
Introduction:
The labelling perspective challenges our view of crime and criminal justice.
According to proponents of this theory, crime is a social process.
It involves different perceptions of what constitutes “good” or “bad” behaviour
and those specific power relationships (e.g. police, courts) that determine what
is deemed to be “deviant” or an offender.
Crime is not an “objective” phenomenon – it is an outcome of specific types of
human interaction between the offender, the victim and the officials of the
criminal justice system.
Basic argument of labelling is that continued crime is the result of limited
opportunities for acceptable behaviour, which is the result of the negative
responses of society to those people defined (labelled) as offenders.
There are 2 variations of labelling theory:
o The interactionist approach, which focuses on self-identification and deals
with the thoughts of the deviant;
o The social response approach, which focuses on the identity of individuals
as attributed to them by others and that deals with the opinions of others,
especially the social agents of control.
The labelling perspective, otherwise known as the societal reactions approach,
became popular in the 1960s. In its application to crime, the labelling theory is
used
to explain why some individuals become criminals; why some crime waves
occur;
why some criminal stereotypes emerge and persist; and why some groups in
society
are more likely to be punished and punished more severely than others.
The labelling theory is based on earlier contributions from Frank Tannenbaum
and
Edwin M. Lemert, despite it only becoming popular in the 1960s. Tannenbaum
Definition of key concept:
Labelling perspective:
Explains criminal behaviour as a reaction to having been labelled as a
delinquent.
When subjects are stigmatised as delinquents, they are frequently driven to act
out a self-fulfilling prophecy (the label “criminal” becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy – the person has little choice but to conform to the essential meaning
of that judgment because he has already been labelled)
In short, labelling pushed violators into a path of future deviance. Labelling
theorist’s asset that those in power place labels on the powerless.
The labelling perspective is also known as the Societal Reaction School.
Interactionist approach:
The interactionist approach states that people will behave according to their own
interpretations of reality, through which they assign meanings to things; people will
observe how others react, either positive or negative; and they proceed to revaluate
, and interpret the way they behave according to the meaning and symbols they have
learned from others.
Lemert’s theory can be described as the “model” of the interactionist approach.
Edwin M Lemert (1912–1996)
The main assumptions of Lemert’s theory are explained by Hunter and Dantzker
(2002:111):
Individuals enter a criminal career after they have been labelled, especially if
the labelling is done by people important to the individual.
Labelling creates a stigma and influences an individual’s self-image.
Labelled individuals see themselves as deviant and will increasingly commit
criminal behaviour.
Lemert focused on the process that leads juveniles to describe themselves as
delinquent. Lemert explained this phenomenon partly by referring to the juvenile’s
social class and interaction with the formal decision-making powers (e.g. the juvenile
court).
He was critical of rehabilitation – in his opinion, such attempts merely encourage
recidivism.
Lemert (White & Haines, 2004:86) developed the concepts of ‘‘primary deviance’’ and
‘‘secondary deviance’’.
Primary deviance
refers to initial deviant behaviour.
An example of this is a person who uses an opportunity to steal an item from a
shop (without being caught) or who drives a car under the influence of alcohol
(without being caught).
These actions are regarded as wrong, but the person (offender) is not seen as a
bad person or labelled as deviant by others because he or she has not been
caught.
Lemert does not attach much value to primary deviance, because the person’s
self -image is not damaged in the process.
There is no change in identity, and deviance is seen as nothing more than a
passing event.
Secondary deviance
refers to the phase when a person’s deviant behaviour is repeated regularly, is
visible, and is the subject of social reaction (punitive measures).
The offender is now stigmatised and labelled as a bad person.
It is possible that the offender may act in a way that shows acceptance of the
new deviant label (e.g. ‘‘thief’’ or ‘‘criminal’’).
However, not all people who have been labelled, assume these roles. Some offenders
resist labelling by denying or downplaying the seriousness of their actions (Walsh &
Ellis, 2007:127).
The labelling perspective emphasises the process of labelling and does not see
deviance as a state of being, but as an outcome of social interaction.
Social response approach
