Labelling Theories - Narratives 24:02:2020 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Labelling Theories - Narratives 24:02:2020 PDF

Description

Crime: Narratives and Explanations – Monday 24th February 2020 Labelling Theories LT - Sociological Approach  Unlike the Classical or Positivist theories of crime labelling theory is grounded in early sociological theories  Early sociological theories focused on the role of social status, bias, class, power and the environment and labelling theory was born out of these concepts.  Labelling theory is unlike other sociological theories because it rejects using the offender as the starting point in their analysis but focuses on the behaviour of those who apply the labels or seek to control offenders.  Social constructivism implies that crime is a definition rather than a behaviour, definitions of crime are arbitrary and based on subjective values rather than objective facts. This is evident across cultures and countries because criminal law is different wherever you go.  This approach to crime stated to question the previously taken for granted definitions of crime and started from the basic premise that no behaviour is inherently deviant or criminal. Labelling theorist look at how and why something becomes to be consider Labelling Theory  Labelling theory/theorist focus on three main things:  What and how some acts come to be defined as deviant – this means that there is some focus on legal practices and those that define the law  Focus on the notion that certain groups and individuals are more likely to attract the deviant label that others – therefore the social context in which labels are applied are also considered  Focus on the experience and impact of being labelled as deviant or criminal – often talk about why people commit crime and the subsequent social punishment, don’t usually discuss the consequence of the person. The negative impact this has on individuals Burke (2009) Discussion Activity  Can you think of a label you use to define yourself – Why is this label important to you and does it affect your behaviour in anyway?  Can you think of an example of something that is a crime in the UK but not in other countries?  Can you think of examples of behaviour perceived to be deviant that comes with labels that is not in fact criminal in the UK?  Can you think of labels that may make society view someone differently or a label that invokes a certain view of the person or what their behaviour might be?  If asked to described a criminal write a description that immediately comes to mind Crime/Deviance as a Social Construct “Deviance is not a quality of the act a person commits, but rather the consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’. The deviant is one whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label.” Becker (1963:9)

Crime: Narratives and Explanations – Monday 24th February 2020 Emergence of Labelling Theory  Labelling theory really began to come to the fore in the 1960’s although it draws on work of earlier scholars such as Durkheim and Mead – Consider the political and social context of the time  Labelling is closely linked to social-construction and symbolic-interaction  Symbolic Interactionism – George Mead – Our self-image is shaped and re-shaped but interacting with and reaction from others. They way other view us and the way we view ourselves subsequent impact on our behaviour and the behaviour of others towards us.  Becker (1963) social groups create deviance by making rules and applying them to particular people. A person or an act becomes deviant when society labels them as deviant. Labelling Theory and Crime  Crime is socially constructed through social relations and interactions, not act in itself is intrinsically criminal – something can be legal one day and illegal the next  State intervention labels offenders as criminal which can in fact deepen criminal behaviour  Criminologist should focus on and explore why some behaviours are labelled as criminal, how this label is applied and what the consequences of such labelling could be. – because if the consequences are continued offending or reoffending, is that something that we want?  Can you think of any consequences either positive or negative of labelling individuals or groups? – learning difficulties or dyslexic, positive consequences e.g. having things adapted printing in different colours which is helpful, but also negative consequences such as a lower level of expectation of yourself, or lower level of expectation from your lecturer or institution Frank Tannenbaum  Work in the 1930’s came to been seen as using some of the principles of labelling theory  Focus of juvenile delinquency – delinquents are no different from non-delinquents  Rather it is a tagging process which leads a young person being defined as such  Often the behaviour of youth and particular activates associated with youth lead to the label of young people as delinquent as such attitudes change towards young people  Not good kids doing bad things but they become labelled as bad kids doing bad things  Modern example of tagging – ASBO’s  Labelling theory ideas were perhaps most influential in the juvenile justice system in the 70's and 80's where it was considered important to help young people avoid the labels associated with the Criminal Justice System (Newburn, 2013) Howard Becker  One of the key scholars for labelling theory;

Crime: Narratives and Explanations – Monday 24th February 2020 

  

“Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders” Rules are created by certain groups and it is the breaking of those rules that constitutes deviance Rules are applied to particular people so the focus should be on who applies the labels and to whom and what consequences does the application of such labels have Can you think of any examples where people have successfully rejected or shrugged off the deviant label?

Potential Consequences of Labelling - Primary and Secondary Deviance  Lemert (1951) argued that consequences can be affected by what he termed ‘Primary’ or ‘Secondary’ deviance  Primary Deviance – the act committed is not seen by others, therefore the individual is not labelled publicly as a deviant and the individual is unlikely to see themselves as deviant. The offending is often quite minor  Secondary Deviance – The results from societies reaction, the offender is labelled and stereotyped which often involves being stigmatised or excluded from mainstream society. This may lead you to continue to follow this pattern of behaviour and seek others who do the same after your exclusion from mainstream society Self-Fulfilling Prophecy  Interventions by the Law and Justice system can be degrading  Offender is labelled as someone who is more likely to get into trouble again due to original act  Social reaction to this individual creates a Master Status which pushes the individual to behaviour in a certain way again and see themselves as the label which has been ascribed to them  Merton (1968: 477) “The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false declaration of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the originally false definition come true” Deviance and the Institution  Institutions (prisons, asylums) are particularly important in the stigmatising process part of the labelling process  Goffman ('Asylums') argues that the stated aims of institutions of cure and rehabilitation, but that in practice, the institution strives to get the deviant to accept their deviant identity.  Through a series of interactions, pressure is put on the deviant to accept a label. This involves a 'mortification' process, especially on entry to the institution  The final stage of this process is 'institutionalisation'. Whereby the inmate accepts the label and thereby may become unable to function outside of the institution.  The post-institutional experience of many people is stigmatisation and social rejection. The deviant is ascribed a negative identity which in many cases is irreversible.  'The deviant returns home with no proper licence to resume a normal life in the community. Nothing has happened to cancel out the stigmas imposed on him... the

Crime: Narratives and Explanations – Monday 24th February 2020 members of the community seem reluctant to accept the returning deviant on an entirely equal footing... if the returning deviant has to face the community's apprehension often enough... he may respond to the uncertainty by resuming deviant activity.' (Box) Deviancy Amplification Wilkins (1964);  Less tolerance of deviant behaviour  More actions being defined as crimes  More action against criminals  More alienation of criminals  More crime by deviant groups  Less tolerance of Criminal Behaviour Moral Panics  Moral panics are a potential consequence of labelling and can lead to certain groups being marginalised from society.  Cohen (1972) Folk Devils and moral panics. Media created a moral panic by exaggerating the behaviour of the mods and rockers clashes in Clacton leading to public concern. A crackdown was called for by moral entrepreneurs and the outcome was that police were seen to be arresting more young people due to public concern over youth crime. More deviance was created by applying the label folk devils.  The grass roots model, elite-engineered model and interest group theory  Moral panics can lead to the deviancy application spiral Crime Shame and Reintegration  Braithwaite – more modern approach to labelling theory. Crime shame and reintegration. When a criminal act occurs attempts are made to shame the person, Braithwaite argues that society needs to commit to shaming the person in a way that is re-integrative to avoid creating stigma he has done a bad thing but he is not a bad person. Need to show forgiveness and provided an opportunity to repent this builds more commitment to the law. Attachment to others and a social commitment are important elements to reducing crime. Attachment/Social bonding theory elements.  Societal reaction can increase offending behaviour, if shaming is to be effective it must be of a limited nature and after which genuine forgiveness must follow to allow the offender to be fully reintegrated.  Shaming can lead to stigmatisation if done incorrectly the UK and USA seem to have this culture currently. Restorative justice is a form of re-integrative shaming. Criticisms of Labelling Theory  Labelling theory doesn’t explain why crime is committed and seems to focus of the offender as the victim which ignores the real victims of crime.  There is a concentration on marginal forms of deviance  Suggest that without labelling there would be no deviance which seems unlikely.  Fails to explain why crime is committed in the first place, fails to identify why people choose deviance.

Crime: Narratives and Explanations – Monday 24th February 2020   

Little empirical evidence theories were hard to test and there was a total neglect of other factors including biology, environmental and situational factors. Fails to explain how labelling affects people differently why some go on to continue deviant behaviour and others don’t. If labelling is so straightforward, then it should be more uniform in its effects. Not only should it always produce negative consequences, but also such consequences should only occur because of the application of the label. But is this the case? Surely the application of the label can result in a decrease in deviant behaviour?

Empirical Tests of Labelling Theory - Ray and Downs – secondary deviance partially supported among male drug users - Smith and Paternoster (1990) – no support for deviancy amplifications - Smith and Brame (1994) labelling can explain the persistence of delinquency but not the initial acts - Corey (1996) – found that labelling was a key factor in the self-concept of young men in prison Policy Implications  De-criminalisation  Diversion – especially in relation to youth crime  Legal Rights protection  De-institutionalisation  Re-integrativing shaming – RJ, Summary  Labelling Theory was born out of a sociological approach to crime  At the time it really came to the fore, the conditions were ripe for challenging the state, especially in relation to control and power  Labelling theory recognised crime and deviance and a social construct  Concern with what happens after the act has committed but no focus on the cause of the original act itself  Deviance doesn’t reside in the act but rather in the social reaction and how this may lead to the labelling of certain groups of societies Discussion Activities  What are the policy implications of labelling theory?  Do you think labelling theory is more relevant to certain types of crime that others?  Without labelling deviance would not exist – Do you agree with this statement if not why not?  What are the consequences according to labelling theorist for young people involved in behaviour that is labelled deviant  In relation to our earlier discussion on the description of a criminal can you explain how your ideas my be linked to or explained by labelling theory?

Conclusion

Crime: Narratives and Explanations – Monday 24th February 2020 “Most young people grow out of crime as they become more mature and responsible. They need encouragement and help to become law-abiding. Even a short period in custody is quite likely to confirm them as criminals, particularly as they acquire more criminal skills. They see themselves labelled as criminals and behave accordingly” Home Office Green Paper Conservative Government 1988...