A Level Sociology



A Level Sociology Crime and DevianceTopic 3Labelling Theories of Crime and Deviancecenter31051500Objectives:Understand why labelling theorists regard crime and deviance as socially constructedUnderstand the labelling process and its consequences for those who are labelledBe able to evaluate the strengths and limitations of labelling theory in explaining crime and deviance Labelling Theory Reviewed…Labelling theory is a micro-sociological approach to the study of crime and deviance; interactionists use this approach to explain how people’s communication with others, and image of themselves, can cause criminal behaviour. There are big similarities here to the interactionist topics studied in the first year of this course in the education topic. We will explore labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy in much more detail.Interactionists shift the focus of study from the macro scale to the micro scale. They argue that no act in itself is inherently criminal in all times and in all situations. It is the perception, and label, of an act as criminal that really makes a crime. So, it is not the nature of the act itself that is deviant or criminal but society’s reaction to that act.Firstly, let’s recap: Define the key concepts that interactionists use and try to apply this to the topic of crime and deviance. Concept (AO1)Explanation (AO1)Can you apply it to their view of crime? (AO2) Stretch yourself!! LabellingMaster StatusDeviant CareerSelf-fulfilling ProphecyRather than simply taking the definition of crime for granted, labelling theorists are interested in how and why certain acts come to be defined or labelled as criminal in the first place. They argue that no act is inherently criminal or deviant in itself, in all situations and at all times. Instead it only comes to be so when others label it as such. It is not the nature of the act that makes it deviant but society’s reaction to it. Becker:Activity – recap Becker’s work on the ideal pupil below:203835039370Ideal pupilIdeal pupil‘Social groups create deviance by creating the rules whose infraction (breaking) constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders’ (Becker 1963)For Becker, therefore, a deviant is simply someone to whom the label has been successfully applied and deviant behaviour is simply behaviour that people so label.This leads labelling theorists to look at how and why rules and laws get made. They are particularly interested in the role of what Becker calls moral entrepreneurs. These are people who lead a moral ‘crusade’ to change the law in the belief that it will benefit those to whom it is applied. However, Becker argues that this new law invariably has two effects:?The creation of a new group of ‘outsiders’ – outlaws or deviants who break the new rule?The creation or expansion of a social control agency (such as the police) to enforce the rule and impose labels on offendersBecker notes that social control agencies themselves may also campaign for a change in the law to increase their own power. For example, the US Federal Bureau of Narcotics successfully campaigned for the passing of the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 to outlaw marijuana use. Supposedly, this was on the grounds of its ill effects on young people, but Becker argued it was really to extend the Bureau’s sphere of influence. Thus it is not the inherent harmfulness of a particular behaviour that leads to new laws being created, but rather the efforts of powerful individuals and groups to redefine that behaviour as acceptable. Not everyone who commits an offence is punished for it. Whether a person is arrested, charged and convicted depends on factors such as:?Their interactions with agencies of social control such as the police and the courts?Their appearance, background and personal biography?The situation and circumstances of the offenceThis leads labelling theorists to look at how the laws are applied and enforced. Their studies show that agencies of social control are more likely to label certain groups as deviant or criminal.Stretch yourself – How is Becker’s work on the ideal pupil similar to his work on labelling and crime? Cicourel: Activity – look at the pictures below and identify what the police would think of each individual: 271493726035008953501016000Officers’ decisions to arrest are influenced by their stereotypes of offenders. Cicourel found that officers’ typifications – their commonsense theories or stereotypes of what the typical delinquent is like – led them to concentrate on certain types. This resulted in law enforcement showing a class bias, in that working-class areas and people fitted the police typifications most closely. In turn, this led police to patrol working-class areas more intensively, resulting in more arrests and therefore confirming their stereotypes. Activity – write down some examples of police typifications of the criminal type:Cicourel also found that other agents of social control within the criminal justice system reinforced this bias. For example, probation officers held the commonsense theory that juvenile delinquency was caused by broken homes, poverty and lax parenting. Therefore they tended to see youths from such backgrounds as likely to offend in future and were less likely to support non-custodial sentences for them. In Cicourel’s view justice is not fixed but negotiable. For example when middle class youths were arrested, they were less likely to be charged. This was partly because their background did not fit the idea of the police’s typical delinquent and partly because his parents were more likely to be able to negotiate successfully on their behalf, convincing the control agencies that the delinquent was sorry and that they as parents would monitor them. He therefore argues that statistics on crime do not give us a valid picture of crime because of the fact justice is negotiable. Instead he states we should focus on how statistics are constructed.Stretch yourself – What would Marxists suggest about this? How does this fit in with Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital? left297180‘Official statistics show that most criminals are young, male, working class and often black.’Explain the above statement using Cicourel’s work (hint…link to social construction of crime statistics)020000‘Official statistics show that most criminals are young, male, working class and often black.’Explain the above statement using Cicourel’s work (hint…link to social construction of crime statistics)Lemert:Lemert distinguishes between two types of deviance:Primary devianceThis refers to deviant acts that have not been publicly labelled. Lemert argues that it is pointless to seek the causes of primary deviance, since it is so widespread that it is unlikely to have a single cause and in any case it is often trivial and mostly goes uncaught. These acts are not part of an organised deviant way of life, so offenders can easily rationalise them away, for example ‘a moment of madness’. They have little significance for the individual’s status or self-concept. In short, primary deviants don’t generally see themselves as deviant. Secondary devianceHowever, some deviance is labelled and secondary deviance is the result of societal reaction. Being caught and publicly labelled as a criminal can involve being stigmatised, shamed, humiliated, shunned or excluded from normal society. Once the individual is labelled, others may come to see him only in terms of the label. This becomes his master status, or controlling identity, overriding all others. In the eyes of the world, he is no longer a colleague, father or neighbour, his now a thief, junkie or paedophile – in short, an outsider. This can provoke a crisis for the individual’s self-concept or sense of identity. One way to resolve this crisis for the individual to accept the deviant label and see themselves as the world sees them. In turn, this may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which the individual acts or lives up to their deviant label, thereby becoming what the label says they are, Lemert refers to the further deviance that results from acting out the label as secondary deviance. Secondary deviance is likely to provoke further hostile reactions from society and reinforce the deviant’s outsider status. Again, this in turn may lead to more deviance and a deviant career. For example the ex-convict finds it hard to go straight because no one will employ him, so he seeks out other outsiders for support. This may involve joining a deviant subculture that offers deviant career opportunities and role models, rewards deviant behaviour and confirms his deviant identity.Activity – complete the grid below giving examples of primary and secondary deviance:Primary deviance – examplesSecondary deviance – examplesThe deviance amplification spiral is a term labelling theorists use to describe a process in which the attempt to control deviance leads to an increase in the level of deviance. This lead to greater attempts to control it and, in turn, this produces yet higher levels of deviance. More and more control produces more and more deviance, in an escalating spiral or snowballing feedback process. Links to: ?Stanley Cohen Mods and Rockers (Media)?August 2011 RiotsGoffman:Goffman examined the treatment of mental patients in institutions and his findings illustrate the idea of Lemert’s secondary deviance. He found how deviance can actually be created by the societal reaction to it. When inmates arrive in the mental hospital, pressure is placed on them to accept the institution’s definition of them as ‘mentally ill’. The inmate’s individuality is removed through what Goffman calls a mortification process. This involves:Clothes and possessions removed and stored awayPatient may be washed and disinfected and have their hair cutDays are controlled in a strict regimeInmates have little freedom- their actions are watched and assessedGiven new identity in the form of regulation clothes and toiletriesThe effect of this is that it leaves inmates unprepared for life on the outside. They become institutionalised because:Some accept the label of deviantOthers believe they are unable to function on the outsideEven if they do leave they will be labelled as an ex- mental patientStretch yourself – Where else may individuals become institutionalised?Braithwaite:Recent studies have shown how increases in the attempt to control and punish young offenders are having the opposite effect. For example in the USA, Triplett (2000) notes an increasing tendency to see young offender as evil and to be less tolerant of minor deviance. The criminal justice system has re-labelled status offences such as truancy as more serious offences, resulting in much harsher sentences. As predicted by Lemert’s theory of secondary deviance, this has resulted in an increase rather than a decrease in offending, with levels of violence among the young rising. These findings indicate that labelling theory has important policy implications. They add weight to the argument that negative labelling pushes offenders towards a deviant career. Therefore, logically, to reduce deviance we should make and enforce fewer rules for people to break. For example, by decriminalising soft drugs, we might reduce the number of people with criminal convictions and hence the risk of secondary deviance. Similarly, labelling theory implies that we should avoid publicly naming and shaming offenders, since this is likely to create a perception of them as evil outsiders and by excluding them from mainstream society, push them in to further deviance.Most labelling theorists see labelling as having negative effects. However, John Braithwaite identifies a more positive role for the labelling process. He distinguishes between two types of shaming:?Disintegrative shaming – where not only the crime but also the criminal is labelled as bad and the offender is excluded from society?Reintegrative shaming – by contrast labels the act, but not the actor, as if to say ‘he has done a bad thing’ rather than ‘he is a bad person’The policy of reintegrative shaming avoids stigmatising the offender as evil while at the same time making them aware of the negative impact of their actions upon other and then encourages others to forgive them and accept them back in to society. This avoids pushing them back out of society.Activity – give examples of both types of shaming:Disintegrative shaming – Reintegrative shaming – Stretch yourself – What traditional structural theorists could reintegrative shaming link in to? Evaluation:StrengthsLabelling theory shows that a law is not a fixed set of rules to be taken for granted, but something whose construction we need to explain It shows that law is often enforced in discriminatory ways and that crime statistics are more a record of the activities of control agents than criminals It shows that society’s attempts to control deviance can backfire and create more deviance, not lessIt provides insight in to the nature of deviance not provided by structural theoriesIt shows the importance of reactions of others in creating and defining devianceIt highlights the role of moral entrepreneurs like the media when creating and defining devianceLimitationsIt tends to be deterministic, implying that once someone is labelled, a deviant career is inevitableIts emphasis on the negative effects of labelling gives an offender a kind of victim status. Realist sociologists argue that this ignores the victims of crimeBy assuming that offenders are passive victims of labelling it ignores the fact that individuals may actively choose devianceIt fails to explain why people commit primary deviance in the first place, before they get labelledIt implies that without labelling, deviance would not exist. This leads to the strange conclusion that someone who commits a crime but is not labelled has not deviated. It also implies that deviants are unaware that they are deviant until labelled. Yet most are well aware that they are going against social normsIt was the first theory to recognise the role of power in creating deviance, but it fails to analyse the source of this power. For example, Marxists argue that it fails to examine the links between the labelling process and capitalism. It also fails to explain the origins of the labels or why they are applied to certain groups, such as the working classIt has little to say about victims of crimeIs interactionism and labelling theory useful in explaining crime and deviance? It is useful because…….It is not useful because………Glossary of Key Terms:LabellingSocial Construction Negotiation of JusticeTypificationsPrimary DevianceSecondary DevianceDeviance Amplification Deviant CareerMortification ProcessReintegrative ShamingDisintegrative ShamingExam technique:Outline two criticisms of labelling theory (4 marks) ? ? Outline three ways that labelling theory can be used to explain patterns in crime statistics (6 marks) ? ? ? Item ALabelling is the process of attaching a definition or a meaning on to an individual or group. Labelling an individual may impact on how others see them and labelling a group may lead to higher arrests. Applying material from Item A, analyse two effects of the labelling process on individuals and groups (10 marks) Point one – Point two – Item B Rather than look for the initial causes of the deviant act, as functionalists do, labelling theorists ask how and why some groups and acts come to be labelled as criminal or deviant while others do not. Coming from an interactionist perspective, they argue that what we mean by crime or deviance is the outcome of the same processes of social interaction – between police officer and suspect, for example- as any other social behaviour. Therefore, to understand crime and deviance, we must grasp the meanings involved in the interaction. Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the contribution of labelling theory to our understanding of society (30 marks) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download