Furthermore, working with Malinowski, Becker’s ‘The Outsiders’ provides a very clear illustration of the labelling theory applied to the idea of crime and deviance. Malinowski describes how a youth killed himself when he had become publically accused of incest. Malinowski first inquired about the case, and found that the Islanders, of the home belonging to the boy, reacted with horror and disgust of the boys’ offence. However, on further investigation, Malinowski found that incest was not uncommon on the island and as long as it was kept discreet, was not a problem. He found that if an incestuous affair became to public, the islanders reacted with abuse, the offenders were ostracised and often driven to suicide. Malinowski’s investigation led to Becker’s argument that it is only when the person is labelled that there are consequences. He argues that because someone breaks a rule, it does not necessarily follow that others will define it as deviant, someone has to enforce, or draw attention to, the act of so called deviance before his/her behaviour is defined as deviant. However, Liazos criticises the labelling theorists for simply exploring marginally deviant activities, by doing so, they are reinforcing the idea of pimps, prostitutes and mentally ill people as being deviant. Even by claiming to speak for the underdog, labelling theorists hardly present any challenge for the status quo.
Labelling theory alerts us to the way in which the whole area of crime depends upon social constructions of reality, law creation, law enforcement and the identities of the rule breakers are 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 or at least informed by the media. British Sociologist, Leslie Wilkins showed how the response to deviance, instead of just by the individual, but by agencies such as the police and the media, can actually generate an increase in deviance. This was known as Deviancy Amplification. Wilkins stated that when acts are defined as deviant, the deviants become stigmatised and cut off from mainstream society. They become aware that they are regarded as deviants and, as a consequence of this awareness, they become more isolated and even result in developing their own subcultures, which further confirms and strengthens them in their deviance. One example of this was provided by Jock Young, who used this concept in his study of drug use in North London. He showed that increased police activity led to drug use being ‘driven underground’. This resulted in isolating users into a drug subculture, causing wide public concern over the new drug subculture, therefore only encouraged the police to intensify their clampdown on drug users further, which only served to accelerate the spiral of this amplification process.
However, Marxist writers argue what are the conditions under which some groups succeed and others fail and that labelling theorists fails to answers this. In fact, they argue, that the labelling theory does not have a coherent theory of power, as it argues that more powerful groups are able to impose their ‘definition of the situation’ on others, yet does not explain why some groups more power than others and are more able to get laws passed and enforced that are beneficial to them.
Additionally, Gouldner further criticises labelling theorist with a Marxist argument, for the failure to provide any real challenge to the status quo. He argued that all they did in their studies was to criticise doctors, psychiatrists and police officers for their role in labelling but failed to ever look beyond this at more powerful groups who benefit from this focus on marginal groups. Gouldner’s Marxist argument claims that labelling theorists draw attention away from the ‘real crime’.
Additionally, one of the areas in which labelling theory has been most productive is in its analysis of mental illness and its treatment. Labelling theorists present a serious challenge to conventional approaches in two ways. First, they claim that mental illness is a label that is applied to the behaviour of certain people in certain circumstances. The mentally ill, are initially a little different from ‘normal’, it is just they have had the label ‘mentally ill attached’ to their behaviour, and this has consequences for their self-perception and the ways others treat and perceive them. Secondly, the very concept of mental illness is socially constructed. What is considered to be bizarre or unexplainable behaviour varies according to circumstance. It is not that certain forms of behaviour are essentially ‘mad’, rather that our definition of what is normal, and what is not, varies over time between different people. Labelling stresses the socially created nature of mental illness and the contribution others make to the acquirement of symptoms of illness which occur after the labelling has taken place.
The labelling approach has been criticise for ignoring the reality of mental illness and for failing to appreciate the very real conditions which lead certain groups to have high rates of mental illness. Often mental illness derives from a lack of material resources and meaningful relationships, which results in feelings of worthlessness and despair. Mental illness does not hit the population randomly, but us far more likely to strike the poor than the affluent; females rather than males and blacks rather than whites.
Overall, while there are many criticisms of Becker’s labelling theory contribution to crime and deviance it is clear that despite its criticisms, it has had a major impact on the understanding of crime and deviance. Labelling theory has provided an alternative understanding towards the nature crime and deviance. It has developed the understanding of society’s reaction to, and labelling of criminals. It explores the perception of deviance from the individual and from social institutions and agenises. Although understanding crime and deviance through the development of labelling theory does not hold a complete answer or understanding, it does provide a very strong and convincing argument of what crime and deviance essentially is, and why we as a society label some people or acts as criminal or deviant.
