Edwin Schur (1971) proposed three levels in which labelling could take place. Firstly there is collective rule making. In 1963 Becker began to study the making of laws and the foundations of numerous of types of other rules, which had previously be overlooked. Becker’s (1963) study of American drug laws, led to crucial research into the area of law making. Because laws are the outcome of political process, questions began to arise concerning power and politics. This then contributed to the study of power and the state becoming a more important issue in criminology. (Coleman and Norris, 2000).
Secondly there was that of organisational processing. This is the notion that labelling is a ‘routine activity by those agents and organisations which were responsible for the identification and the processing of deviance.’ (Coleman and Norris, 2000: 70). The labelling theorists encouraged studies into the relationship between these ‘agents and organisations’ and the supposed rule-breakers. These studies introduced the idea that certain factors such as race, class, gender and appearance could have a direct influence on the likelihood of receiving a deviant label. (Coleman and Norris, 2000).
Finally the concept that labelling occurs in interpersonal relations in daily communication. This is concerned with the consequences of being labelled, such as the effects it may have on a person. For example once a person has been labelled do they perceive themselves differently? And does the application of a label increase the likelihood of additional deviance? (Coleman and Norris, 2000). Lemert (1967) presented the notion of secondary deviance. This is the idea that deviance is a consequence of a person being labelled, i.e. once a person has been labelled as deviant, any further deviance they carry out is a result of being labelled in the first place. (Rock, 1997). What Lemert was trying to point out was that procedures usually regarded as trying to achieve social control such as labelling, could result in the opposite outcome. (Coleman and Norris, 2000).
Cohen (1972) studied the response to fights involving rival groups in the 1960’s on a May Bank Holiday. What were actually only normal occurrences between youths became to be described as conflict between ‘mods and rockers’. There was an expectation that on the next Bank Holiday trouble would also break out as the media and ‘self-styled’ mods and rockers hinted that it would. Therefore on the next Bank Holiday there was a vast amount of police, media and general public waiting for trouble to erupt. In time a minor disturbance started which grew rapidly. When analysing the incident, Cohen implied that the reason for the disturbance was in part, due to the expectation that there would be trouble. (Croall, 1998).
Although people are labelled with various titles, no other labels have such extreme consequences as the deviant label. (Croall, 1998). A label classifies a person as a certain type of individual. Once a person has been labelled either as a criminal or as mentally ill, it tends to dominate all other statuses that that person might have such as friend, parent or employer. It becomes a master status. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000). Individuals who are regarded as deviant in one way are frequently alleged to be deviant in other ways. For example, people often presume that convicted criminals suffer from mental health problems. People who have been labelled as deviant are regularly subjected to discrimination, for instance those released from prison constantly find it hard to get a job due to their past history. They may experience people behaving differently towards them, whether it being avoiding them or acting embarrassed towards them. (Croall, 1998). Consequently this may then lead to them taking on a criminal identity and embracing a criminal career. (Morrison, 1995).
The labelling theory was criticised on many aspects. There was uncertainty about whether it did actually constitute as a theory or whether it was simply just a perspective. (Coleman and Norris, 2000). Croall (1998) found that most see it as a perspective as oppose to a theory because ‘it does not seek to fully analyse crime but focuses on how crime and criminals are processed.’ (Croall, 1998:64). Plummer (1979) argued that perceiving the labelling approach as a theory is biased and naive, and that only by judging it as a perspective can you value its contribution. (Coleman and Norris, 2000).
The labelling approach was also criticised as it ignores the initial causes of deviance. Although the perspective never aimed to deal with this in the first place, it has been criticised for disregarding it and perceiving it as insignificant. (Coleman and Norris, 2000).
It has been said that the perspective is too deterministic; once a person has been labelled ‘deviant’ they will react with further deviance and have little choice in the matter. However as Plummer (1979) pointed out, although there is a great deal of evidence which suggests that a criminal career is likely once a person has been labelled as ‘deviant’, people can refuse to accept the label and leave the process altogether. (Croall, 1998).
Criticism arose on the grounds that the approach is too sympathetic towards criminals. The vast majority of studies focused on less serious crimes such as delinquency and drug taking, and ignored the more serious types of crime such as sexual and violent offences. And criminals were often put across as the ‘victims of harsh social control’. (Croall, 1998: 65).
Another criticism of the perspective argued by Hudson (1997:455) was that the labelling perspective focused on the actions of ‘front line agents of control’ and that it was not to be found in other broader theories of social control.
The final criticism of the perspective is that it is lacking in its analysis of power and structure. Taylor et al (1973) stated that it was hard to attempt to answer issues such as law making, due to the inadequately developed analysis of social structure and power. Likewise Gouldner (1975) found that many of the studies into the labelling perspective focused upon local agents of social control and how they interact with deviants, rather than those in a major position of power, such as the state. (Coleman and Norris, 2000).
When evaluating the contribution of the labelling perspective to the study of crime and deviance, we must decide on how to interpret the approach, whether it being a perspective or a theory. As a theory we can see that it has many faults. However as a perspective intending to focus upon the ‘nature, origins, application and consequences of deviancy labels’, its contribution is significant. (Coleman and Norris, 2000: 72). One reason being that it introduced secondary deviance and created a new area of study. Another reason being the vast amount of research evidence that supports the perspective, such as the comprehensive work by Howard Becker, Edwin Schur and Stanley Cohen. We can conclude by saying that even with all its criticisms, the labelling perspective is another valuable way of studying crime and deviance.
Bibliography
Coleman, C. & Norris, C. (2000) Introducing Criminology. Devon: Willan.
Croall, H. (1998) Crime and Society In Britain. Essex: Person Education.
Haralambos, M. Holborn, M. & Heald, R. (2000) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (5th Edition) London: HarperCollins.
Hudson, B. A. (1997) ‘Social Control’ in Maguire, M. Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (eds)
The Oxford Handbook Of Criminology (2nd Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morrison, W. (1995) Theoretical Criminology. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Rock, P. (1997) ‘Sociological Theories of Crime’ in Maguire, M. Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook Of Criminology (2nd Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, J. (1997) ‘Left Realist Criminology’ in Maguire, M. Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook Of Criminology (2nd Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MARK: 58%
