The labeling perspective presents us with a whole new idea of crime.

        Becker and other Interactionalist Sociologists would argue that the labelling perspective adds a new viewpoint to the analysis of crime. Indeed its approach is more sociological and raises questions which are crucial to the understanding of crime and of society in general. Questions such as; who has the authority to label people? Why are some people labelled and not others? How does this affect understanding of crime?

These questions however, have also been considered to be one of the flaws of the labelling perspective. Some writers have argued that while Becker’s theories have these questions as one of the focal points of his work he has done little to answer them fully. Writers like Ackers for example have their doubts over this issue and have criticised it in their work ‘they say little more than what conflict theorists have been saying for some time, that is, the dominant groups in society will have their norms and values prevail’.

        Another critique of the labelling theory is that it is too deterministic in nature. Ackers again raises this point ‘one sometimes gets the impression from reading the literature on labelling that people go about minding their own business, and then wham, bad society comes along and slaps on them a stigmatised label’. Ackers is not alone in criticising this characteristic. In his book Asylums, Goffman thinks that some individuals can be stripped of their identity, he introduces a factor called ‘disculturalisation’ a factor which ‘renders him temporarily incapable of managing certain features of daily life on the outside’. This has lead to critisicm of Beckers concept of the outsider, since this notion requires a person to lose all personality, to be considered outside of society’s normal environment. People like Young have also argued that the role that the mass media plays in the process of segregating groups and thus in the creation of subcultures is hugely undervalued by our society. It is the media who choose what news which should see and not ‘the type of information which the mass media portray is that which is “newsworthy”. They select events which are atypical, present them in a stereotypical fashion and contrast them against a backcloth of normality which is overtypical’

Despite these critiques the labelling perspective continues to be a fascinating and significant perspective upon crime. While in practice, the perspective can seem to have its flaws, theoretically labelling introduces very valuable ideas to enhance the understanding of crime. For example, in his book The Drugtakers: The Social Meaning of Drug Use, Young’s study of the hypocrisy which surrounds the law as regards to drug taking is extremely interesting. He explains that, from an objective point of view there is very little difference between marijuana and tobacco. The effects and the addictiveness of the drugs are very similar yet the social conceptions of them are immensely distinct. In his studies Becker also noted some similar conclusions and found that the drug was prohibited in the USA because it was convenient for the bureaucratic interests of the country.

        Sam Cohen also uses real life scenarios to portray society’s influence upon the subcultures. More specifically he uses the case of the Mods and Rockers riots where the press coverage of the first meeting of the gangs added to a police presence had the effect of creating a spiral, whereby the media coverage created ‘moral panic’ which only resulted in more violence. These notions are important to the study and understanding of crime and seem not to have been given their true importance by Ackers and others who have questioned their usefulness.

        In ‘The New Criminology’ Taylor, Walton and Young offer an interesting reassessment of crime theory. They try to highlight the ineffectiveness of ‘Beckers methodological assumptions’. Whilst the studies and theories considered in this essay tend to look towards labellings true presence in society, Taylor, Walton and Young try and question whether there is enough scientific evidence of the existence of such a theory. They start off by agreeing with Ackers and state ‘just because a person defines a situation as real does not mean that we always act out their definitions’ in other words they are of the opinion that the labeling perspective relies too much on psychological assumptions and is therefore too deterministic in nature. However, the most important argument raised by these sociologists is that ‘we do not live in a world of free social meaning’. So for example different acts are defined differently depending on the circumstances. Murder is a good example, a murderer is labelled as deviant however in war he is deemed a hero. They argue that society is fundamentally aware of this difference, so the label is not decided subjectively. These writers believe that ultimately responsibility for the deviant behaviour lies in the individual. So if a person is participating in an illegal which he knows is illegal then he knows that he going against social standards.

        Lemert seems keen to prove that labeling is responsible in many a way for the creation of secondary deviance. Whereas primary deviation originates in ‘a wide variety of social, cultural, and psychological contexts’ secondary deviation ‘is deviant behaviour….created by the societal reaction to primary deviation.’ So it is society, in his opinion, which is responsible for a person joining a subculture. It is the individuals status and label given to him, and the way in which he reacts to that label which will in a sense set the precedent on whether he will go on to become a secondary deviant. Taylor, Walton and Young believe that this idea can lead people in the wrong direction as it places too much importance on the difference between primary and secondary deviance and on the transition from primary to secondary whilst not paying enough attention to where the initial deviance stems from both socially and psychologically. One must also take into account that not everyone who commits a crime has a label attached to him. There are plenty of people who commit crime and go unnoticed, their crime may not be reported to the police, or the police may for some reason decide not to take the matter any further. So just as important as the individuals actions which ultimately result in him being labelled, are the actions of the police and the institutions which govern the procedures and decide who is deviant and who is not.

        The weaknesses of the labeling perspective seem at a glance to be very clear. Those who oppose it will argue that it is at best a theory which at best remains unproven due to lack of practical evidence to reinforce its ideas. So if one argues that a social audience is fundamental in the establishment of a label then how can those who carry out their deviance in secret be classified?

        Even though one could argue that the labeling perspective has remained mainly theoretical the notion in itself along with its ideas and arguments presents itself as an invaluable tool in the study of criminology and deviance. Its studies are from a sociological viewpoint and do tend to show that society does have an effect on an individuals actions. But who defines these labels? Sam Cohen and Howard Becker among others have talked of ‘moral entrepreneurs’ who define certain activities as deviant. However as Howard Becker stated ‘the act of labeling …cannot possibly be conceived as the sole explanation of what alleged deviants actually do’ It is these ‘moral entrepreneurs’ who  put pressure on the relevant authorities to take action against a particular group. So for example in the case of the ‘Mods and Rockers’ mentioned above, the moral entrepreneurs would have been the media who created the state of ‘moral panic’ and forced the police to take action.

        It is useful to note that most labeling or interactionist theorists have been keen to dismiss the idea that we become what we are labelled. ‘Names may have an extraordinary power but can rarely change a person to accord with a deviant label’.Nonetheless one must remember that society in our day is concerned with public opinion and the way in which people regard you. The actions of an individual are never completely independent and usually tend to keep self-image into account. One has to remember that in the same way as the study of one area of criminology does not create a complete picture of the way society works in relation to criminology, the labeling perspective does not by itself offer an account of the true picture of criminology. However when put together with other theories it can enhance the perspective of crime in general. Also when we look at the opinions of Becker, Lemert and Cohen in particular we can see how the dynamics involved in labeling create a good picture of the processes that an individual goes through during his evolution from being a ‘normal’ member of society to being labelled a deviant and cast as an outsider.

        

---