How Far Has the Work of Labelling Theorists and Interactionists Helped Us to Understand Why Some People Become Criminal and Others Do Not?

However, it is possible for people to reject any label placed upon them. If a fan went to a match and did not cause any trouble or behave deviantly in any way, they would not be punished. Also, if they do not wish to be judged or prevented from doing things in society they would only have to take off their football shirt. Fans can also support their teams at home watching on television. Although, it could be counter-argued that people should not have a label placed on them without real cause. Dunning et al claimed that it was not the label that caused football hooliganism or any other kind of behaviour but masculinity. They claimed that the lower classes feel a need to prove them, and therefore fight in order to demonstrate their masculinity. This may explain persistent football hooligans, but it does not explain those who only get involved in it once or twice. Taylor found that the most common excuse was that they were "caught up in the moment" and that it was not their normal behaviour.

Lemert defined two types of deviance, primary and secondary. Primary deviance is the initial act which is not yet labelled but within time becomes labelled. The secondary deviance is when an act is labelled deviant. For example, in a small community in America it was considered to be "abnormal" if a child spoke with a stutter. Therefore, if parents had a child who was developing a stutter they would be ashamed making the child's stutter worse rather than helping them. The primary deviance was having a stutter as the child had little awareness of society's reaction; the secondary deviance was a label being attached and people treating that person differently and the child realising this through their parent's behaviour. Had that act not been labelled the child would have more likely have grown out of it.

However, Kituse puts forward the idea that labels are not set in stone. Furthermore, labels are negotiable; the parents who judged their child on the basis of their stutter could change their mind that they had an abnormal child. For example, if a child excelled despite their stutter the parents may then think that a stutter is a good thing. The stutter may still have a label but it may have a positive effect also on the child, so it not deviant anymore.

Cooley, who was studying Human Nature and Social Order in 1902, developed the idea of the Looking Glass Self. People who are labelled see themselves as the label they have acquired. They cannot see any other side to themselves and therefore really become that label. For example, if a young black male is labelled as a violent, unruly person they will come to believe that they are and then act out their label. The label has been applied and society caused that person to become that label as they can no longer see past it.

A criticism of Cooley is that the person who has been labelled is not always aware of it. Therefore if the person is not aware of the label placed upon them, they cannot internalise it and become that label. The person may still become that label by circumstance not attached to the label, but it still has not caused that person to be deviant.

In conclusion, the labelling and interaction theories on crime can be applied to specific types of criminal and deviant acts within society such as when the person has recognised they have the label and react negatively to it. The theory does not consider those people who use their label in a positive way or do not realise a label has been placed. Labelling and interaction does occur though so it does explain some crime and deviance but other theories need to be considered to come up with a balanced idea of what causes or creates crime and deviance.