Interactionists believe that agents of social control amplify deviance. Young’s study on the police showed how their labelling caused a deviant subculture to emerge as previously integrated members of society were labelled as deviant, rejected by wider society and so grouped together to form a deviant subculture that was more deviant than before. Goffman’s study of mental institutions revealed how patients are sent through a process of mortification where they lose their self-concept and are under a strict regime so that they become institutionalised and so do not become better, thus amplifying deviance. Cohen illustrates how also the media can amplify deviance and is an example of Lemert’s secondary deviance based on societal reaction. When social groups are presented in the media in a negative way that exaggerates their deviance they are shown as ‘folk devils’. Folk devils create a moral panic as society over reacts to a perceived problem and society’s reaction amplifies the problem. Cohen uses the example of Margate in 1960 where a fight between two groups of teenagers took place. The disorder was minor yet the media exaggerated and distorted the event that made them both look like distinct subcultures which affected society’s reaction to teenagers. The people of Margate then labelled them and caused these two subcultures to emerge, creating a self fulfilling prophecy. However, McRobbie and Thornton have criticised Cohen by saying that due to the large amount of coverage of social events in the media, moral panics have become routine and so have less of an effect.
Interactionists have been criticised for their theories of moral panic as they do not explain why the media amplifies some problems and not others. Interactionism (being a social action theory) criticises social structural theories for being deterministic as it says people are passive when the social action theory can be criticised for being deterministic too as labels do not inadvertently lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. The moral panic theory implies that people are passive although it says they are not.
S. Jones details how Interactionist theory influences government policies. Interactionists believe that society makes crime by labelling some behaviour as ‘criminal’ so in order to reduce crime rates, certain crimes should be decriminalised. (For example, the legalising of cannabis in Amsterdam and mix-raced marriages and homosexuality in England.) Secondly, Becker’s theory of labelling has supported the idea that people should not be labelled as it can lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. Due to this, laws were put in place so that the media could not ‘name and shame’ criminals and criminals could be given new identities. However, since the 1990s, government policy has moved away from Interactionist theories and towards Right Realist theories and their policies that promote tougher punishments and labelling more behaviours as deviant. Becker also created the term ‘moral entrepreneurs’. Moral entrepreneurs go on moral crusades in order to change laws as they believe that changing the law will benefit the people they are trying to help when in fact it may give them the label of being deviant as they are now criminalised for breaking the newly made law.
The labelling theory can be criticised as labelling does not always lead to a self fulfilling prophecy: Fuller’s study of Black girls that were labelled as failures by teachers rejected their labels and so worked harder in order to succeed in education – however, their label still affected their behaviour. Reiss’ study also showed how labels do not always lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. Male heterosexual prostitutes would be paid to engage in sex with male clients and were labelled by clients as homosexual but their self-concept was not affected. Akers developed the labelling theory by suggesting that sometimes labelling leads to a change in behaviour but sometimes the behaviour comes before the label. Liazos criticises Interactionism as it depicts working class people as the victims of labelling – as the police hold typifications – ignores white collar crime and only suggests how the working class are labelled as criminals. Left and Right Realist theories criticise Interactionism for romanticising crime by excusing working class crimes and ignoring the seriousness of working class crime. The Marxist, Goulder also criticises Interactionism for it ignores the concept of power and says that Capitalists have the power to impose labels.
Goulder criticises Becker’s research of moral entrepreneurs as he says that people are either successful or unsuccessful in changing the law based on the amount of power they have. For example, factories continue to pollute the environment as they have economic leverage over the government.
To conclude, Interactionist theories of crime and deviance can be criticised as they do not explain why some problems presented in the media are amplified and why some are not. The labelling theory is deterministic as it assumes that labels will lead to self fulfilling prophecies when studies have shown that this is not always the case. It ignores white collar crime, romanticises working class crime by excusing it and ignores the concept of power and those who have the power to impose labels. However, developments have acknowledged that the behaviour may come before the label but since the 1990s Right Realist theories have surpassed Interactionism in their influence over government policy.
