How do interactionists explain crime?
(Labelling Theory)
Mistakes most theories make is that
they assume law-breakers are
somehow different from law-abiding
people.
Most people commit deviant and criminal
acts but only some are caught and
stigmatised for it
Howard Becker
Just because someone breaks a rule it
does not necessarily follow that others
will define it as deviant.
Someone has to enforce the rules, or at least, draw
attention to them – these people usually have a vested
interest in the issue.
If the person is successfully labelled then consequences
follow. Once publicly labelled as deviant, an offender is
left facing a limited number of options.
He illustrated a point "Injecting heroin
into your arm is not deviant, because it
is fine if a nurse does it under doctors
orders. It only becomes deviant when
society defines it as such"
Applicable to other facets of social life-
warriors allowed to kill during times of war
but not times of peace
Responding to and Enforcing the Rules
Most Sociologists argue that once a deviant or criminal act has
been committed then the response will be uniform
Not the case as people respond differently to
deviance or rule breaking.
For example in 1960's gay men more likely to
be stigmatised than now.
British Crime Survey Statistics
Show young black males more likely to be stopped and
searched than any other group.
Results of police officers belief they they are more likely to offend
than any other social group- therefore become subjects of routine
suspicion.
Symbolic interactionism/
labelling theory
Actions are by nature criminal or deviant- depends on the
norms and values of society
The reaction of members of society in different context and situations
Interactionists believe there is no
deviance only acts which are labelled as
deviant
Reiner (1994)
Ethnic minorities or
working-class youths living in
specific areas are targeted
more by police
Cicourel (1976)
Studied police and juvenile officers in California- found police
more likely to arrest people who fitted the picture ie- poor
school performance- low income background- ethnic
minorities.
In contrast
Middle-class delinquents who were
arrested tended to be counselled,
cautioned and released by police officer.
Labelling theory shows how
authority figures have ability to
create social characteristics of
typical delinquents as being young,
working class males.
Contrast significantly with functionalist/ subcultural
notions of crime & deviance.
Primary and secondary deviance
Lemert
Moved interactionism forward by arguing
there's a difference between primary and
secondary deviance
Primary deviance - acts which have not been publicly defined as deviant
Secondary Deviance - Publicly defined as
deviant
Shows how deviance is a two stage proccess
First identified then agents of social control get involved
Societal Reaction
Jock Young
Simply being labelled as deviant
creates self fulfilling prophecy -
labelled individual acts according
to label given to them.
Example: 1960's hippies used dope as part of
lifestyle- once labelled as dope users they began
to use dope as THE symbol of their difference
rather than A symbol.
Stan Cohen
Media amplified- exaggerated the
extent of disturbances
Called this exaggeration 'deviancy amplification
spiral' which perpetuated further disturbances
into moral panic.
Evaluation
Pros
Identifies significance of labelling in the judicial process
Shows how groups are labelled and identified accordingly
Shows how once certain characteristics are identified with
a particular social group these subsequent atributes are
identified and then acted upon by agents of social control
Cons
Fails to account why certain groups are labelled and not others