CRIME AND DEVIANCE: INTERACTIONISM



A LEVEL

SOCIOLOGY

A-Level Paper 3: Crime & Deviance and Theory & Methods

Topic:

CRIME & DEVIANCE

Booklet 2c:

Theories of Crime, Deviance, Social Order & Social Control

INTERACTIONISM

(LABELLING THEORY)

INTERACTIONISM

(Labelling Theory)

Which of the two groups of boys below do you consider to be potential deviants?

Of course, there is no way of knowing for sure. If you had said either one, you would be guilty of labelling. But, there are those who are consistently labelled as deviant by society, and as a result live up to that negative label.

|Introduction |

|Most theories on crime place an emphasis on the social factors (poverty, subcultural values) that may lead to delinquency. Interactionists take a different |

|approach. They examine: |

|How and why particular individuals and groups are defined as deviant. |

|The effects of such a definition on their future actions. |

| |

|As we have previously seen, interactionists take a relativistic view of crime and deviance. For an act to be defined a criminal or deviant depends on who |

|sees, who commits it, when, where & how it is committed. Thus, crime and deviance is not a fixed concept. |

|They argue that no act is inherently criminal or deviant in itself in all institutions and at all times. Instead it only comes to be so when others label it |

|as such. In other words, it is not the nature of the act that makes it deviant, but the nature of society’s reaction to the act. Get it? |

INTERACTIONISM (LABELLING THEORY)

There are three key areas of focus for interactionist theory of crime, which are:

1. How & why certain acts are defined as deviant

2. Who gets labelled?

3. The effects of labelling

1. How & why certain acts are defined as deviant - Becker

Main man: Becker – the ‘godfather’ of labelling theory

Main quotation: “Deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label.”

In other words – There is really no such thing as a deviant act. An act only becomes deviant when it perceived (and labelled) as such – Deviance is therefore a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

Labelling theorists, such as Howard Becker, began exploring how and why certain acts were defined as criminal or deviant and why other such acts were not. Such theorists viewed criminals not as evil persons who engaged in wrong acts but as individuals who had a criminal status placed upon them by both the criminal justice system and the community at large. From this point of view, the criminal act is itself not significant for Interactionists. Their focus is on the social reaction to the act: labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Becker provides the example of a brawl involving young people:

• In a low-income area this may be defined by the police as delinquency. Arrests may follow.

• In a wealthy area it may be defined as youthful high spirits, with no arrests.

The acts are the same but the meaning given to them by observers, in this instance the police, is different. If youngsters are defined as deviant and convicted then they have become deviant. In other words they live up to their label.

According to Becker, once labelled, individuals enter into a deviant cycle:

This leads labelling theorists to look at how and why rules and laws get made. Becker is particularly interested in the role of moral entrepreneurs. These are people, usually in a position of power, such as politicians or pressure groups, 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:

1. The creation of a new group of ‘outsiders’ – outlaws or deviants who break the new rule.

2. The creation or expansion of a social control agency (such as the police) to enforce the rule and impose labels on offenders.

Becker 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 argues 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 unacceptable.

|i) ‘There is no such thing as a deviant act’. What is Becker on about? |

| |

|ii) Outline a DEVIANT CYCLE, using an example of your own. |

| |

|iii) Who are moral entrepreneurs and what is their role in the labelling of individuals? |

|EVALUATION OF BECKER AND LABELLING THEORY |

|Strengths – How has this theory been useful? |

|Becker’s ideas challenge the normative view of crime and deviance, which argues there is a consensus over how criminal and deviant acts are defined. |

|His ideas offer a convincing alternative to other structural theories (functionalism & Marxism) which argue the cause of crime and deviance can be found in |

|the way society is organised. Instead Becker argues the meanings we attach to behaviours are subjective. |

|Becker also highlights the fact that certain groups can essentially decide what is criminal for an entire society, this is clearly an issue as certain people |

|in society hold more power than others. Can you think of any other theories which may support this view? |

| |

|Weaknesses – How has this theory not been useful? |

|Labelling theory has a major weakness in that it does not explain why people choose to be deviant in the first place. If this initial deviance can’t be |

|explained then many sociologist may challenge its overall validity. |

|Matza (as we saw previously) argues young people simply ‘drift’ in and out of criminal and deviant behaviour. He argues this is just a normal part of growing |

|up, rather than a response to labelling. |

|Labelling theory can also be accused of being deterministic, meaning people have no choice but to respond to their label, however people can and do reject the|

|labels that have been attached to them. |

2. Who gets labelled? - Cicourel & the ‘typical criminal’

Not everyone who commits an offence is punished for it. Whether a person is arrested, charged and convicted depends on factors such as:

• Their interaction with agencies of social control such as the police and courts

• Their appearance, background and personal biography

• The situations and circumstances of the offence

This 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 of people as deviant or criminal.

Cicourel demonstrates how decisions to arrest are influenced by stereotypical or common sense views about offenders. His study of the police and probation officers illustrates this view. Both groups held a similar set of characteristics about the ‘typical criminal’ or ‘typical delinquent’: poor family background, often with absent fathers during childhood, low education levels, negative attitude towards mainstream values, ethnic group membership, low income, poor job prospects and so on.

In Cicourel’s view, justice is not fixed but negotiable. For example when a middle-class youth who found themselves arrested for criminal behaviour were usually ‘counselled, cautioned and released’, rather than charged. This was partly because his background did not fit with that of the ‘typical delinquent’ and partly because his parents were able to negotiate successfully on his behalf. On the other hand, young males who did fit the picture of the ‘typical delinquent’ were more likely to be arrested & charged.

|Cicourel’s theory has significant implications for the accuracy of official statistics, which interactionists argue are socially constructed. Using the key |

|terms below, write a brief paragraph explaining why official stats cannot be taken at face value based on Cicourel’s theory. |

|Official statistics reported & recorded crime dark figure of crime labelling typical delinquent |

| |

| |

| |

|EVALUATION OF CICOUREL & THE ‘TYPICAL CRIMINAL’ |

|Strengths – How has this theory been useful? |

|Cicourel’s study is useful for pointing out the effects of police stereotypes in the labelling of offenders. |

|It provides an excellent topic link with Marxist theories of selective law enforcement as his work argues that the middle classes more able to ‘negotiate’ |

|themselves out of trouble, whereas the working classes are more likely to be arrested and charged. |

|Cicourel’s work could help inform training that police officers receive to ensure this type of labelling no longer occurs. |

| |

|Weaknesses – How has this theory not been useful? |

|It can be argued that this theory is too deterministic, as not all police officers label in this way. |

|Statistics support the fact that people from low socio-economic groups and ethnic minorities do commit proportionately more crime. Left Realists, Right |

|Realists (more on these next) and Functionalists consequently criticise Cicourel for offering excuses for criminal statistics and in doing so ignores a very |

|real issue in society and the victims of the criminality of this group. |

3. The effects of labelling

Labelling theorists are interested in the effects of labelling upon those who are labelled. They claim that by labelling certain people as criminal or deviant, society actually encourages them to become more so.

i) Lemert: Primary & secondary deviance

Lemert distinguishes between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ deviance:

• Primary deviance consists of deviant acts that have not been publicly labelled.

Most people have committed a deviant act in their lives, such as fare dodging or dropping litter. Lemert argues that it is pointless to seek out the cause of primary deviance as it is so widespread it is unlikely to have a single cause. Additionally, they have little significance for the individual’s status or self-concept. In short, primary deviants don’t generally see themselves as deviant.

• Secondary deviance, by contrast, refers to deviant acts which result from being publicly labelled deviant.

Secondary deviance is the result of social reaction, ie labelling. Being caught and publicly labelled as a criminal can involve being stigmatised, shamed, shunned, or excluded from normal society. Such acts may well have dramatic implications for the individual’s identity and status in society. Those labelled are marked out and given a negative master status that overrides all others. In the eyes of the world, he is no longer a father, a colleague, father or neighbour; he is now a thief, junkie or paedophile – in short, an outsider.

Those who have been labelled may embark on a ‘deviant career’, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

ii) Jock Young: The police, labelling and marijuana users

Jock Young (1971) developed the concept of secondary deviance and deviant career in his study of ‘hippie’ marijuana users in Notting Hill, London. He described the process as:

1. The police label hippies as dirty, lazy, drug addicts.

2. Police action against marijuana users unites the hippies and makes them feel different.

3. As a result they retreat into small groups.

4. Deviant norms and values develop in these closed groups. Hair is grown longer, clothes become more unconventional and drug use becomes a central activity.

Whereas before the police persecution, drug taking was merely a casual activity for the group, however following the unwelcome attention of the police & labelling, smoking dope became an important symbol of their resistance and defiance. It became their master status and lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

|EVALUATION OF LABELLING & SOCIAL REACTION |

|Strengths – How have these theories been useful? |

|The work of Lemert & Young illustrates the idea that it is not the act itself, but the hostile social reaction to it that creates serious deviance. |

|Lemert’s & Young’s work helps to point out the power of labels and in particular public labels. This has clear implications to the impact of labels attached |

|to groups and individuals by the media (more on this later). |

|Their work also helps explain why people with the master status of “criminal” feel they have nothing to gain from stopping their criminal career. |

| |

|Weaknesses – How have these theories not been useful? |

|These perspectives don’t help explain why people continue to commit criminal acts despite not being labelled by the public i.e. the pickpocket who has never |

|been caught. |

|Like with the previous theories, it is claimed that Lemert’s & Young’s theories of the effects of labelling theory are too deterministic. It assumes that once|

|a person has been labelled, their deviance will automatically increase. Is this really the case? |

|Synoptic link: Which author found that those who are labelled have the ability to reject their label? |

|Question Time: |

|Outline the characteristics of the ‘typical criminal’. |

| |

| |

|Explain the difference between primary deviance and secondary deviance. |

| |

| |

| |

|Evaluate the similarities and differences between Cicourel’s theory of the typical delinquent and Marxist theory of crime. |

|Similarities: |

| |

| |

|Differences: |

| |

| |

B) LABELLING AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

The studies we have looked at above, demonstrate how attempts to control and punish young offenders, both formally (police & teachers) and informally (parents & peers) can actually have the opposite effect. This therefore has serious implications for criminal justice policy and how the criminal justice system should be dealing with offenders.

i) Jones: Policy implications

Jones (1998) identifies two main policy implications of labelling theory. He argues:

1. As many types of behaviour as possible should be decriminalised.

For example, in other countries, such as Holland, cannabis has been effectively legalised. And if it’s no longer a crime there are no longer criminals. No criminal = no label; no label = no self-fulfilling prophecy of further deviance. Simple!

2. When the law has to intervene, it should avoid giving people a self-concept in which they view themselves as criminals.

For example, as system of warnings or cautions could be used to deal with delinquents. Prison should be a last resort.

ii) Braithwaite: Reintergrative shaming/positive labelling

Braithwaite argued labelling could have a positive effect on crime, there by leading to a reduction in the crime rates in society. He argued there were two possible outcomes of labelling, depending on how it is implemented:

1. Disintegrative shaming – the crime & the criminal are labelled as bad & the offender excluded from society – is negative & lead to secondary deviance

2. Reintergrative shaming – by labelling the act & not the actor – “he has done a bad thing” & not “he is a bad person”.

He argued lower crime rates result where there is more reintergrative shaming as this avoids stigmatising the offender but makes them aware of the negative impact of their actions on others – encouraging others to forgive them & accept them back into society – hopefully avoiding secondary deviance.

However, these liberal policies became less popular in the 1990s. Recent emphasis has been on the naming and shaming of offenders, particularly in the media, such as paedophiles.

|EVALUATION OF LABELLING AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY |

|Strengths – How have these theories been useful? |

|Braithwaite’s work highlights the positive effects labelling can have for society if managed correctly. Reintergrative shaming is used in some societies, |

|including Britain, but is referred to as restorative justice. |

|Additionally in more liberal countries, such as Sweden, many of these policies are already in place and they have lower reoffending rates than elsewhere. |

|Weaknesses – How have these theories not been useful? |

|The work of Jones is heavily criticised. By decriminalising behaviours that are potentially damaging to society may reduce crime on paper, but not reduce |

|activity that is morally wrong. Arguably, the biggest impact decriminalisation would have is to official statistics. |

|Similarly by having prison as a last resort, there would not be a strong enough deterrent to prevent behaviour that is damaging to society. |

|Braithwaite’s accounts have also been criticised for not being accurate as statistics show a high reoffending rate, particularly amongst young offenders, |

|despite efforts at reintergrative shaming. |

|Much of the information cited in the next two sections is to be found elsewhere in the Crime and Deviance module. However, it is important you are aware how |

|they link in with interactionism. |

C) MEDIA AND LABELLING THEORY

The main focus of interactionism is that the whole area of crime is based upon a social construction of reality. It goes on to discuss how the media plays a crucial role in law creation, law enforcement and the identities of rule breakers. Two very important concepts associated with the media are introduced: Deviancy amplification & Moral panics

i) Wilkins: Deviancy amplification

The British criminologist Leslie Wilkins (1964) coined the phrase ‘deviancy amplification’. He meant by this the process by which the reaction of agencies like the media can actually generate and increase deviance.

The media’s reaction to a wide range of public issues is often out of proportion to the actual problem and deviants themselves become stigmatised. The media’s portrayal of crime and deviance often resorts to stereotypes or centres on certain symbols that become synonymous with deviance. For example, skin colour, hair styles, items of clothing, modes of transport, even religion (as with Islamophobia) can become a ‘symbolic shorthand’ for deviance and those who possess these symbols are likely to viewed as troublemakers.

ii) Cohen: Moral panics

Deviancy amplification and moral panic overlap with each other. Wilkins' ideas of deviancy amplification was developed by Stan Cohen (1970) through his study of ‘mods and ‘rockers’ in the 1960s.

The term moral panic refers to a concern about groups Cohen refers to as ‘folk devils’ whose behaviour associated with irresponsibility and lack of respect. He describes how the media, through the process of deviancy amplification, encouraged and increased the very behaviour they were condemning.

Cohen believed that moral panics result at times of rapid social change, which are potentially unstable resulting in people looking for scapegoats upon which to blame their insecurity on.

iii) Stuart Hall: The Media, the Police and Ethnicity

Hall takes a neo-Marxist or new criminology approach to the study of crime, which combines both Marxist views and interactionist views.

Hall claims that during the 1970s British capitalism was undergoing a crisis, with social unrest such as student protests and strikes by miners and other large unions. Ruling-class power was to some extent being challenged. Hall argues that the media-led panic about young, black, men committing violent street robberies, or ‘muggings’ at this time was a direct response, not to actual events (there was no evidence of a real increase in the crime), but to this crisis of the capitalist hegemony and the need of capitalism to reassert its rule.

Hall argues that black youth were scapegoated (blamed for a problem that was not their doing) so the ruling class coud divert public attention away from far more important problems of society – the poverty and inequality created by capitalism. This ‘conspiracy’, involving the media, the police and magistrates / judges, Hall regards as a classic way in which power is exercised by the powerful capitalist elite in society. It is a form of ideological control to ensure ruling-class domination is maintained. Power is exercised in terms of the ability to define a new social problem (mugging), and being able to use both the Ideological State Apparatus –the media – and the Repressive State Apparatus – police, courts – to achieve desired goals.

iv) Taylor: Gunchester (The Labelling of Manchester)

Taylor, from Salford University, looked at the media’s negative portrayal of Manchester’s gun-culture problems in the early 1990s. A series of front page headlines suggested that gun crime was rapidly increasing in Moss Side and other inner-city areas. The result of all this publicity? Manchester soon acquired a label as a dangerous city, full of gun-toting gangsters. The truth? Manchester’s murder rate actually fell in 1990! Taylor highlights another moral panic, fuelled by the media, where the truth is obscured by the hype and the panic.

|EVALUATION OF MEDIA & LABELLING THEORY |

|Based on all the learning we have done from this booklet… |

|Outline TWO strengths of the above theories. (4) |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|Outline THREE criticisms of the above theories. (6) |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

D) SUICIDE & MENTAL ILLNESS: The sociology of mental illness

Interactionists are interested not just in crime but in deviant behavior more widely. Here we focus on two important areas generally regarded as deviant: suicide and mental illness.

1. Suicide

i) Jack Douglas: Suicide statistics are socially constructed

Douglas (1967) takes an interactionist approach to suicide. He is critical of the use of official suicide statistics for the same reasons as interactionists distrust official crime statistics. Both are socially constructed. They tell us more about the activities of the people who construct them, such as the police (in the case of crime) and coroners (in the case of suicide), than the real rates of these acts in society.

For example, whether a death comes to be officially labelled as suicide rather than an accident of homicide, depends on the interactions and negotiations between the social actors involved, such as the coroner, relatives, friends and doctors.

Activity:

|Cause of death |Interactions between social actors |Verdict |

|Hanging |Victim had just broken up with wife and she had taken the | |

| |children to live with another man. | |

|Run over by train |Victim was seen crying & drinking heavily the evening of their| |

| |death | |

|Drug overdose |Victim had written posts on Facebook about not having any | |

| |friends | |

The statistics therefore tell us nothing about the meanings behind an individual’s decision to commit suicide. If we want to understand their meanings, Douglas argues, we must use qualitative methods instead, such as the analysis of suicide notes, or unstructured interviews with the deceased’s friends and relatives, or with people who have survived a suicide attempt. This would allow us to ‘get behind’ the labels coroners attach to deaths to discover their true meanings.

|Synoptic link: Which sociological perspective would argue we should be analysing suicides through official statistics, and therefore criticize the |

|interactionist argument? |

| |

ii) Max Atkinson: Coroners assumptions

Atkinson (1978) agrees that official statistics are merely a record of labels coroners attach to deaths. He argues that it is impossible to know for sure what meanings the dead give to their deaths.

Atkinson therefore focuses instead on the taken-for-granted assumptions that coroners make when reaching their verdicts. He found their ideas about a ‘typical suicide’ were important; certain modes of death (e.g. hanging), location and circumstances of the death, and the life history (e.g. a recent bereavement) were seen as typical of suicides.

However, Atkinson’s approach can be used against him. If he is correct that all we can do is have interpretations of the social world, rather than real facts about it (such as how many deaths are really suicides), then his account is no more an interpretation and there is no good reason to accept it.

2. Mental Illness

As with crime and suicide, interactionists reject official statistics on mental illness because they regard these as social constructs. That is, they are simply a record of the activities of those such as psychiatrists with the power to attach labels such as ‘schizophrenic’ or ‘paranoid’ to others. Crime, suicide and mental illness statistics are artefacts (things made by human beings), not objective social facts.

As with crime, interactionists are interested in how a person comes to be labelled as mentally ill, and in the effects of this labelling.

i) Lemert - Paranoia

Lemert’s (1962) study of paranoia demonstrated that some people do not easily fit into groups. As a result of this primary deviance, others label the personas ‘odd’ and begin to exclude them.

The individual’s negative response to this is the beginning of _________________ deviance, and it gives the others further reason to exclude them or talk about the person ‘behind their back’. This seems to confirm the individual’s suspicion that people are conspiring against them and their reaction justifies their fears for the person’s mental health, which may in turn lead to psychiatric intervention. Consequently, an official label of ‘mentally ill’ may be attached and even placed in hospital against their will.

As a result, the label ‘mental patient’ becomes their master status and everything they subsequently do will be see in light of this label.

ii) Roshenhan – ‘pseudo-patient’ field experiment

|Synoptic link: What is a field experiment? |

Rosenhan’s (1973) ‘pseudo-patient’ experiment, in which researchers had themselves admitted to a number of hospitals claiming to have been ‘hearing voices’. They were diagnosed as schizophrenic and this became their master status. Even though the pseudo-patients continued to act ‘normally’ once admitted (saying they heard voices to get admitted was the only lie they told) they were treated by staff as mentally ill. For example, the pseudo-patients kept notes on their experiences, but staff interpreted this as a symptom of their illness.

iii) Goffman – Institutionalisation

Goffman’s (1961) study Asylums show some of the possible effects of being admitted to a ‘total institution’ such as a psychiatric hospital.

On admission, the patient undergoes a ‘mortification of the self’ in which their old identity is symbolically ‘killed off’ and replaced by a new one: ‘inmate’. This is achieved by various ‘degradation rituals’, such as the confiscation of personal effects. Goffman notes the similarities with other total institutions such as prisons.

|Other than the confiscation of personal belongings, what other ‘degradation rituals’ do inmates undergo in prison & in mental institutions that would ‘kill |

|off’ their old identity? |

| |

Goffman’s study shows that as a result, some inmates become institutionalized, internalizing their new identity and unable to readjust to the outside world. However, others adopt various forms of resistance or accommodation top their new situation. For example, studies have shown some inmates manipulate their symptoms so as to appear not well enough to be discharged, but not sick enough to be confined to the ward, leading to free movement around the hospital.

|Complete the deviant cycle, using mental illness as the example. |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|EVALUATION OF LABELLING, SUICIDE & MENTAL ILLNESS |

|Strengths – How has this theory been useful? |

|These studies has been useful in demonstrating how deviance, as well as crime, is a social construct and can be amplified through the process of labelling. |

|Both Douglas and Atkinson challenge the functionalist faith in official statistics. Specifically, they challenge Durkheim who used suicide statistics in an |

|attempt to understand why people committed suicide. |

|Goffman in particular shows how institution used to ‘help’ patients actually leads to greater levels of deviance, and this is useful as it can be applied to |

|other institutions like prisons. This could explain why there are such high levels of reoffending. |

| |

|Weaknesses – How has this theory not been useful? |

|Like with all theories, the ideas concerned with mental illness are guilty of determinism. Just because a person is labelled mentally ill, does not mean they |

|will necessarily live up to that label. |

|As previously mentioned, when it comes to suicide, without asking the person who has committed suicide (impossible, unless you are a clairvoyant) then you |

|cannot know the meanings they attach to their actions. |

|Take a look at the dates of these studies! What do you notice? |

|The way in which society deals with and understand mental illness has changed dramatically since these studies were carried out, particularly Goffman’s. We no|

|longer even have the types of institutions he was studying. However, his asylums do more closely resemble our current prison system, so perhaps it is still |

|relevant in that area. |

IN CONCLUSION

|So, how useful is the interactionist perspective overall? |

|Interactionist theory has been incredibly useful in offering an alternate explanation of crime to the dominant structural theories, functionalism & Marxism|

|in the following ways: |

|Rather than taking a macro approach, which attempts to locate crime and deviance in the way society is organised, interactionist look to the meanings |

|individuals attach to behaviours and how people labelling as criminal and/or deviant (micro) |

|Interactionism draws attention to the importance of labelling and societal reaction. These processes can, in themselves, generate deviant and criminal |

|behaviour. |

|It has shown that certain types of people are more likely to experience negative labelling, which helps criticise the accuracy of official statistics and |

|explain the ‘dark figure’ of crime. |

|It has shown how agents of social control, the police, courts, prisons, for example, hold perceptions of the ‘typical criminal’. This understanding can be |

|used to help improve how society deals with deviants and criminals in an attempt to reduce criminality. |

| |

|Despite its uses however, labelling theory has some significant failings. Firstly, it fails to explain why individuals commit crime in the first place |

|(primary deviance). Secondly, is also too deterministic, assuming those labelling will inevitably respond. Some acts, such as murder are considered |

|criminal & deviant in all societies and therefore cannot simply be social construct. Thirdly, Marxists argue interactionists ignore why some people are |

|more likely to be labelled than others. It therefore ignores the wider issue of the distribution of power in our society. |

| |

|Despite these criticisms, it is certainly true that interactionism has had a significant influence on the sociology of deviance, particularly recent |

|approaches such as New Left Realism (which we will look at in the next booklet). |

|Question time: Define the following… |

|self-fulfilling prophecy - |

|master status - |

|moral entrepreneurs - |

|primary deviance – |

|secondary deviance – |

|scapegoating – |

|moral panic – |

|deviancy amplification – |

|Q1: Outline TWO criticisms of labelling theory. (4) |

| |

| |

| |

|Q2: Identify THREE social institutions that have the power to label and explain how it can lead to deviancy amplification. (6) |

| |

| |

| |

EXAM FOCUS

Below is an example of the type of questions you may get asked in the exam, based on this booklet. The key skills are in bold.

|Item A |

|Labelling theorists argue that an act is not inherently criminal; it only becomes so when it is labelled as such. They are interested in the ways that |

|labelling affects the actions of those with the power to label acts as criminal, such as the police and the courts. Being labelled can also have important |

|effects on individuals to whom the label is attached, and labelling a group as criminal can even lead to high rates of crime being recorded. |

|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 and 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. |

A-LEVEL QUESTIONS

Q1: Outline TWO criticisms of labelling theory. (4)

Q2: Outline THREE ways increased deviance (not crime) is a result of labelling. (6)

Q3: Applying material from Item A, analyse TWO effects of the labelling process on individuals and groups. (10)

Q4: Applying material from Item B and your own knowledge, evaluate the contribution of labelling theory to our understanding crime & deviance. (30)

EXAM GUIDANCE

|Q1 & Q2 are short questions and you do not need to include authors/studies/perspectives for full marks. |

|Do not spend too long on these questions. ‘Get in, get out’! |

|Q3 should include the following for full marks: |

|Brief introduction defining any key concepts in the question and/or identifying the relevant perspective/theory. |

|TWO detailed points that directly address the question. Each making reference to relevant authors/studies/evidence/theory. |

|At least one application of material from the item. |

|Brief conclusion that analyses/evaluates the overall information, ie, which point is the most significant/convincing and/or evidence that undermines the |

|arguments overall. |

|10 marks = 15 mins = 1 ½ sides of writing. |

|Q4 should include the following for full marks: |

|Introduction defining any key concepts in the question and outlining the debate you are going to consider in the essay. |

|At least FOUR detailed points that directly address the question. Each making reference to relevant authors/studies/evidence/theory. |

|EVALUATION – There must be alternate arguments and criticisms presented for any chance of higher marks. This is the key skill you are being assessed on. |

|At least one application of material from the item. |

|Conclusion that analyses/evaluates the overall information, ie, which argument is the most significant/convincing and/or evidence that undermines the |

|arguments overall. |

|30 marks = 45 mins = At least 4 sides of writing. |

-----------------------

The label is applied

A distinct deviant subculture is established

Mainstream values rejected

Social reaction takes place

This encourages further deviance

Association with other deviants occurs

Delinquent values are encouraged

The Deviant Cycle

It’s f-f-f-freezing!

Who’s the druggie?

Convenient scapegoat?

The label of mentally ill is applied

The Deviant Cycle

................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download