Labelling theory alerts us that the whole area of crime depends upon social constructions of reality – law creation, law enforcement and the identities of rule breakers are all thrown into question. The media play a key role in all three of these processes, as most people’s perceptions of crime are actually created by the media. Labelling theory has contributed to two particularly important concepts to our understanding of the relationship between the media and crime: deviancy amplification spiral and moral panics. Deviancy amplification spiral was created by Leslie Wilkins to show how the response to deviance, by agencies such as the police and media, can actually generate an increase in deviance. When acts are defined as deviant, the deviants became stigmatised and cut off from mainstream society. They become aware that they are regarded as deviants and, as a result of this awareness; they begin to develop their own subculture. This leads to more intense pressure on them and further isolation, which further confirms and strengthens them in their deviance. An example of the deviancy amplification spiral is as follows: a crime or act of deviance is committed; newspapers then selectively report while sensationalising events to sell more newspapers. The police then become aware of the problem and begin to make more arrests which cause further disturbances and the media continues to report this. The public call for law and order campaign to protect the moral value of society (moral panic). If it wasn’t already defined as a crime, heavy police tactics and sentences are given to offenders. The process described here caused wide public concern which made the police to intensify their clampdown even further, which only served to accelerate the spiral of this amplification process. Next is the idea of moral panics, this both overlaps with and complements the concept of deviancy amplification. The term was first used in Britain by Stan Cohen in a classic study (1972) of two youth subcultures of the 1960’s – ‘mods’ and ‘rockers’. Cohen showed how the media, built up these two groups into folk devils. The effect of the media coverage was to make the young people categorise themselves as either mods or rockers. This actually helped to create the violence that took place between them, which also confirmed them as troublemakers in the eyes of the public.
Labelling theory shows that the law is not a fixed set of rules to be taken for granted, but something whose construction we need to explain. It also shows that the law is often enforced in discriminatory ways, and that crime statistics just shows us the activities of control agents than of the criminals. And it shows that society’s attempts to control deviance can backfire and create more deviance instead of reducing it. But labelling theory has been criticised on many other grounds. It over simplifies the process of labelling, and particularly they minimise the role of the deviant in the defining process. Deviants come across as passive victims. We cannot rule out the possibility that deviants choose to continue their behaviour because they find it rewarding. It also tends to be deterministic, implying that once someone is labelled, a deviant career is inevitable. It also goes on to fail to explain why people commit primary deviance in the first place, before they are labelled. So it implies that without labelling, deviance would not exist. This leads to the conclusion that someone who commits a crime but is not labelled has not deviated, and they are not aware they are deviant until they are labelled, yet we are still aware they are going against the social norms.
In the 1930’s, Robert Merton, tried to find deviance within a functionalist structure. For Merton, crime and deviance were evidence of a poor fit (or a strain) between the socially accepted goals of society and the socially approved means of obtaining those desired goals, the resulting strain leading to deviance. Merton argued that all societies set their members certain goals and, at the same time, provide socially approved ways of achieving these goals; he pointed out that, in a stratified society, the goals were linked to a person’s position in the social structure. Those lower down had restricted goals. The system worked well as long as there was a reasonable chance that a majority of people were able to achieve their goals. However, if the majority of the population were unable to achieve the socially set goals, then they become dissatisfied with society and looked for an alternative which is often deviant. Merton uses Durkheim’s term anomie to describe this situation. The five following different forms of behaviour could then be understood as a strain between goals: Conformity is where the individual continues to adhere to both goals and means, despite the limited likelihood of success. Innovation is where the person accepts the goals of society but uses different ways to achieve these goals; criminal behaviour is included in this response. Next is ritualism this is when the means are used by the individual, but sight of the actual goal is lost. Retreatism is where the individual rejects both the goals and means, the person dependent upon drugs or alcohol is included in this form of behaviour. Finally is rebellion where both the socially sanctioned goals and means are rejected and different ones are substituted.
Writing in the 1950’s, Albert Cohen agreed with Merton and drew upon his ideas of strain and also that there is a working class phenomenon. Cohen was particularly interested in the fact that much offending behaviour was not economically motivated, but simply done for the thrill of the act. Cohen says that ‘lower-class’ boys attempt to copy middle-class values and aspiration, but lacked that means to achieve success. This leads to status frustration; this is when they feel a sense of personal failure and inadequacy. The result was that they rejected those very values and patterns of ‘acceptable’ behaviour that they could not be successful within. Cohen uses school as an example, lower class children are much more likely to fail and feel humiliated. In an attempt to gain status, they invert traditional middle class values by behaving badly and engaging in antisocial behaviours. The idea of strain between goals and means had a big impact on the writings of Cloward and Ohlin who owed much to the ideas of Merton. They argued that Merton had failed to appreciate that there was a parallel opportunity structure to the legal one, called the illegitimate opportunity structure. By this they meant for some subcultures in society, a regular illegal career was available, with recognised illegal means of obtaining society’s goals. According to Cloward and Ohlin, the illegal opportunity structure had three possible subcultures: the first subculture being criminal, there is a thriving local criminal subculture, with successful role models. Young offenders can ‘work their way up the ladder’ in the criminal hierarchy. Next is conflict subculture where there is no local criminal subculture to provide a career opportunity. Groups brought up in this sort of environment are likely to turn to violence, usually against similar groups. Finally is retreatist, this tends to be a more individual response and occurs where the individual has no opportunity or ability to engage in either of the other two subcultures, the result is to retreat to drugs or alcohol. In the late 1950’s, Walter Miller developed a rather different approach to explaining the values of crime when he suggested that deviancy was linked to the culture of lower-class males. Miller suggested that working-class males have six focal concerns (low skilled labour and dead end jobs that lead to finding excitement and thrills outside the workplace) that are likely to lead to delinquency: smartness, trouble, excitement, toughness, autonomy and fate. According to Miller, then, young lower class males are pushed towards crime by the unspoken values of their subculture, and if there was no mainstream culture but loads of subcultures, each subculture has its focal concerns leading to different focal activity.
David Matza thinks subcultural theory makes deviants more distinctive than they really are and often over estimates their activity. He questions how is it possible that people have no freedom to choice whether they commit a criminal act. Matza rejects Cohen’s view that delinquent subcultures reject the values of mainstream society. He believes that delinquent behaviour is often directed what he calls ‘subterranean values’ which are found through society. According to Matza the way young people view their delinquent activity is crucial as many express guilt and shame, meaning that they are still maintaining mainstream values, but drift away from them. Matza says they use techniques of neutralising their deviant acts which makes them feel that they are some way acceptable, they are: denial of responsibility, this is where they suggest to themselves that they were not responsible for their own actions, they had a bad upbringing. Denial of injury, this is where they say ‘Nobody was hurt, I only borrowed the car for a joyride’ making it seem acceptable. Denial of the victim, where they make out the victim deserved it and they needed to be punished. Condemning the condemners, where they see the police as corrupt and brutal and finally appealing to higher loyalties, this is where they say they did it to feed their family or he beat up a family member so I had to get him back etc. These neutralisation techniques allow them to commit to mainstream values but drift away from them without rejecting them completely. Matza is saying that young people drift in out of delinquent behaviours; their deviant behaviour is intermittent rather than a way of life.
All these theories have been criticised, Robert Merton’s Strain Theory has been criticised for his stress on the existence of common goals in society, when, in fact, a variety of goals that people work to attain at any one time. It is also seen to be a very general theory of crime, and it is difficult to empirically test. It works on the assumption that conformity is the norm, when not all cultures this does not apply. His work also builds heavily on Durkheim when he refers to anomie. His theory also does not explain all forms of criminal behaviour and is related mostly to dead end jobs, drug dealing, drug taking etc. It is also to universal, are we not driven by other diverse goals? In Albert Cohen’s theory of status frustration there is no discussion of females; his research is mostly about males. He also fails to prove that school really is the key place where success and failure are demonstrated. He also overestimates the young ‘delinquents’ as they have to be very knowledgeable to work out what are middle class values and how to invert them. Next is Cloward and Ohlin’s theory which has proved to be very true to life, as for some people there really is a criminal opportunity structure, but it has its criticisms, as it is difficult to accept that such a neat distinction into three clear categories occurs in real life. In Miller’s theory he provides little evidence to show that there are specifically lower-class values, but indeed, these lower-class values could equally apply to male’s right across the class structure. There is also no discussion whatsoever about female deviancy. Finally to David Matza’s delinquency drift. In his theory delinquent activity is not predetermined but the young individuals choose it freely and he explains this and his theory explains much of the delinquent activity in Britain which is mainly due to boredom and the risk for excitement. But has he gone too far the other way and under-predicted the amount of crime in Britain? Cohen also goes onto criticise that techniques of neutralisation don’t necessary demonstrate a commitment to mainstream norms and values.
Both approaches put very strong explanations of crime and deviance relating to labelling, the media and public opinion across. Subcultural theories highlight important links between the social structure and the cultural causes of crime and deviance. However they fail to consider subcultural styles and meanings. They also neglect to consider the ways in which crime and deviance is socially constructed by various agencies of social control. For example, the role that selective law enforcement and labelling has in creating a working class crime problem. Whereas the interactionist approach recognises that crime and deviance is socially constructed by agencies of social control. Moreover, it recognises the need to consider the individual meanings behind crime and deviance. However, the interactionist approach ignores the wider structural and cultural causes of crime and deviance. For example anomie, marginalisation and subcultures. In conclusion, I think interactionist approaches give a better explanation of crime in terms of the media, labelling and public opinion. It gives us an explanation of why an individual will commit crime rather than a culture or subculture, which gives us a better explanation than the subcultural theories of crime. They both have their weaknesses but overall I think the interactionist approach is better.
In this essay I have not only looked at the arguments for the media and public opinion but also against, as not all theorists agree with each other. In the arguments for, Howard Becker he focuses on the process by which they label certain acts as deviant and that if no act is intrinsically deviant, then it must be the meanings we attach to behaviour that is important. I then went on to look at the deviancy amplification spiral where on some occasions the reporting of crime by the media can create more deviance, and then on to moral panics where I looked at the real life example of the ‘Mods’ and ‘Rockers’. In the arguments against, Robert Merton focuses on crime and deviance where evidence of a poor fit (or a strain) between the socially accepted goals of society and the socially approved means of obtaining those desired goals, where the resulting strain leading to deviance. Other theories I looked into were: Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin, Miller and Matza and the delinquency drift. Considering the arguments and evidence put across I believe that crime is the result of the media and public opinion. As we all know today, that media and public opinion plays a massive role in society when it comes to crime and deviance and its becoming more and more common to see that most crimes are not always from the lower or working classes as suggested by the subcultural theories of crime. While the interactionist explanations look more at the individual rather than a culture or class, and that individuals are getting labelled for their deviant behaviour. The interactionist approach then goes on to give us two explanations for this: the deviancy amplification spiral and moral panics. So this suggests that the media makes us create an opinion about an individual, which in the long run will become internalised.