'To What Extent Does Labelling Theory Offer a Useful Contribution to the Study of Crime and Deviance in Today’s Society\r'

'Labelling surmise To what extent does enunciateling guess offer a efficacious contri hardlyion to the essay of annoyance and de incisionure in today’s society Introduction This duty assignment will Discuss punctuateling outline, it will attempt to explore the contri scarceions made by labelling theorists, the criticism towards labelling theorists, and the disputeion environ its reality as an hazardual surmisal. thus far the chief(prenominal) focus will be proving an understanding of Howard Becker‘s Labelling surmise and will discover and evaluate Labelling guess to the theater of operations of crime.\r\nIn conclusion it will discuss how relevant labelling surmisal is today. According to (Wellford, 1975) Labelling conjecture or The well-disposed reply Theory as it is to a greater extent often k instantlyn has been around and has developed all over era from as early as 1938. It became precise popular during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were it was seen as a new departure in theories of crime and divergence particularly in sociology. Edwin Lemert is widely recognized as the founder of what is called the social Reaction Theory.\r\nThis is the forerunner to the Social Reaction or Labelling Theory which has act day buryance and includes m whatsoever of the akin concepts. Currently, labelling theory suggests that when a soulfulness commits a crime, they w be got the label of felonious. When a individual is tagged vicious by society, they be seeming to eat up this label as a part of themselves and because the person now deliberates of themselves as a nefarious, they are now potential to continue in their wretched conduct (Becker, 1963). This is close up relevant to this day, e. g. f a male was to rack up a female he will unendingly be seen and kn throw as a sorry. In order to understand labelling theory, familiarization is undeniable with Lemert’s Societal Reaction Theory. Th is theory explores the journey to kindly aberration in two stages; primordial deviance and alternate deviance. Howard Becker is widely associated with the labelling theory through his volume Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. He also developed the term â€Å" honourable entrepreneur” to describe persons in power who contend to oblige certain unnatural conduct out honored.\r\nHe asserts that many of the laws that arrest been passed wear been al unitedly for this purpose, and that doings which is defined as wretched is dynamic and changes throughout time and that on that flushfore, the actual wretched behaviour is hostile to the theory. (Becker, 1963). Becker himself has stated however, that the concept of his work is not a theory, with all the achievements and obligations that go with the title, or focused solely on the act of labelling as some brook thought.\r\nIt is not a single concept, world quite a number of assorted ideas that sustain be en brought together under adept approach, although critics have called the work ambiguous, scratchy and at best a vague panorama Becker, never sought to provide an all-embracing, etiological account of deviance Becker himself prefers the term ‘Interactionist Theory of Deviance developing the consider of deviance from a distinctly social positioning, considering the processes by which particular flakes of act or throng, come to be designate as deviant.\r\nHe has been influenced by whole works such as Cooleys ‘looking-glass self , Lemerts ideas of social constructionism , and Meads theories on the incorporation of the self, Becker makes two arguments: 1. Deviant behaviour must be conceptualized in damage of a sequential mold since variant causes operate at different stages, 2. Rules and enforcement processes must be befooled as developing through time rather than as an isolated moment of disapproval. translation of Labelling Theory Also known as Social Rea ction Theory, this is a theory originated by Edwin Lemert and then(prenominal)ce developed by sociologist Howard Becker.\r\nIt is a social theory concerned with how community perceive themselves as run-down or whitlow due to the labels, which categorized and describe certain behaviours, that are employ to them by criminal justice authorities and by separates in society. The theory maintains that the labels people are given affect their own and otherwises perceptions of them, and how the behaviour of an individual is influenced or counterbalance created by the use of certain labels (i. e. , thief, prostitute, homosexual). The resulting treatment of the individual then pushes them into performing the deviant role or cover version into setity.\r\nThe theory also maintains that the deviance itself is characterized by societies response to any alleged violation of the rules or the expectations of what are considered normal conduct. Primary Deviance Primary deviance begins with an initial criminal act. As stated by Lemart it is a rule- respite behaviour that is carried out by people who see themselves and are indeed seen by others as basically conformist by nature. Following this act of deviance the person whitethorn be labelled as deviant or criminal by their peers and society, yet they themselves do not yet combine this label.\r\nThat is to say that they do not think of themselves in terms as world a criminal. It is this inadequacy of acceptance to see themselves as criminal which differentiates primary from secondary deviance. This person shall remain in a state of primary deviance for as eagle-eyed as they are capable of rationalizing and able to hand with this label by justifying the act as a socially acceptable role (Lemert, 1951). When leading on to secondary winding Deviance, the criminal label is enthroned on an individual during what is known as a debasement Ceremony in which the accused person is nutly or officially labelled as a criminal .\r\nThis would normally take place during court sentencing, solely may also come about in more subtle fashions as well. For example the relatives of a person become withdrawn and distance themselves from that person when they find out they have committed a crime, regardless of whether or not they face any testicle charges (Wellford, 1975). An example of this would be an strange professional dancer: In today’s society an exotic dancer is a perfect example. Others may label the dancer’s act as deviant while the dancer themselves may see it as a perfectly legitimate profession as with any other occupation which enables them to earn an income.\r\n secondary Deviance According to Lemart secondary deviance occurs when in that location is an acceptance by the individual of the deviant behaviour and the criminal label, it unabsorbed into their self image, they on that pointfore see themselves from that point in time as a criminal or deviant. This then becomes a mechanism for defence, attack, or adaptation to the problems of the individual caused by society’s reaction to their primary deviation (Lemert, 1951). is completely considered to have occurred when the labelled person can no perennial deny the label having undergone a degradation sacrament which labels the person eviant, be this through a personalised interview such as family or friends, or a more formal one such as in a court of law, both the individual and society both now accept the view that the wrongdoer is a criminal. Once they eventually accept this label as a part of themselves they will act ,from this point onward, in a way befitting this new criminal label. Secondary deviances is considered to have occurred when both society and the individual appropriate the view that the offender is a criminal. Deviant f hang and Master Status Beckers theory pays particular caution to the way in which society reacts to people with criminal labels.\r\nHe suggests that this label b ecomes the persons Master Status, meaning that it is a constant label, that affects and over-rides how others in society will view them. The status that people will use to cite and classify the person will invariably be that of criminal. Any other statuses a person may have had are no longer heeded nor logical in the eyes of society. A person could be a parent, employee, spouse, etc. , but the start and major(ip) status that will come to mind to other people and themselves is that of the criminal (Becker, 1963).\r\nOn occasion the persons criminal master status may compel them to conform more closely to societys accepted norms. This is an attempt to raise to others that the person may have made mistakes in life, but such mistakes will not pass along again. From this time onwards they will act in a fashion that is deemed Normal (Foster & Dinitz & Reckless, 1972). It is believed however, that in just about cases where the master status is that of a criminal, secondary deviance will be completed rather than being resisted. An identity change will take place in whereby the person will now accept the label of criminal.\r\nWith this new criminal identity is in place, there is subsequent pressure for the individual to post accordingly. Such an identity change may be signalled by a person losing contact with their designer friends (conformist) and starting up associations with other criminal labelled deviants (Becker, 1963). In this new peer group of likewise minded deviants there increases the likelihood of the person not only continuing but also mayhap escalating the rate and seriousness of their criminal air. Negative Labelling\r\n there are a number of powerful individuals at bottom society (politicians, judges, police officers, medical doctors) who can chatter some of the most significant labels. The labelled person may be a drug addict, an alcoholic, a criminal, a delinquents or a prostitute to conjure but a few. The consequences of bein g labelled a deviant can be far-reaching. Social explore indicates that those who have negative labels applied to them coarsely have a lower self-image of themselves, that they are more likely to reject themselves, and that they may even act even more deviantly as a result of the label.\r\nThe inquiry also shows that it is unfortunate that people who accept the labelling of others, whether it is reverse or incorrect, have a difficult time changing their opinions of the labelled person, even in light of evidence to the contrary. In a small carry of child doings after punishment, it was found that if the audience held the offender in a positive regard, the offender was likely to rise to these expectations and act in a manner befitting a â€Å" upright son” (Wellford, 1975). In this way it is practical to use labelling theory in a more productive manner.\r\nThe implications of the study results suggest that two things can be make in order to help prevent labelling theory from having negative effects on people whove dispirited the law. initiative of all if the court atmosphere could be avoided in situations where the crime were minor offenses or misdemeanors its possible that the offender would be able to avoid formal sentencing and the degradation ceremony that goes with it. In such cases reconstructive therapy and out-of-court settlements would be preferable. The other possibility is that a formal ceremony which would cancel the stigma associated with the degradation ceremony could be held.\r\nPerhaps a court contract bridge or letter that the offender is hereby rehabilitated could be used after the offender has served their punishment (Broadhead, 1974). Criticisms of Labelling Theory There have been many criticisms on labelling theorists, Becker states that how interactionist theories have been accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. From a logical standpoint there are flaws inwardly the main points of Labelling Theory. At the outset the theory states that â€Å"No acts are inherently criminal” (Wellford, 1975). This implies that acts are only â€Å"criminal” when society regards them as being â€Å"criminalâ€Å".\r\nThe implications of this as stated by Howard Becker are that â€Å"criminal law is dynamic and ever-changing, differing from society to societyâ€Å". If this holds original then why are certain acts mislabeled and labelled as criminal in the legal age of the civilized world? Murder, rape, arson, armed robbery to list a few are all considered to be crimes in any society or artless one would could care to name. The theory also claims that for a criminal to be successfully labelled as deviant that an audience needs to be present in order to provide a reaction to the crimes committed.\r\nIf a cut up is committed where the killer successfully avoids detection or raising anyones suspicion, would that mean that the murder was not criminal and that the killer would not think of th emselves as such? It may be verisimilar that the murderers own value system could initialize self-labelling, but the theory clearly states the labelling must come from a 3rd party (Hagan, 1973). There have been criticisms that the terms in labelling theory lack precision, and that there is no real account taken of the central social processes, such as how every day behaviour actually needs to have a societal reaction.\r\nThe methodology generally is also seen as lacking clarity, and incorporating too many commonplacesense definitions and assumptions. It is felt that what is needed is a more detailed study in areas such as police procedures, or the categories deployed/applied by social workers and lawyers. in the case of police behaviour, For example, in police behaviour it is clear that lots depends upon the appearance, image, or attitude of the potential suspect, and that very different treatments can be aportioned to suspects, depending on the collective and instantly formed social judgements of the police officer (Cicourel 1968).\r\nLabelling theory appears to over do the idea of a self-fulfilling portent or a deviant career, there is no real gathering of evidence for this, especially what makes a label effective and permanent, how it becomes a master identity. Examples of question Conducted by Labelling Theorists William Chambliss in 1973 conducted a classic study into the effects of labelling. His two groups of white, male, high-school students were both frequently concern in delinquent acts of theft, vandalism, drinking, and truancy. The police never arrested the members of one group, which Chambliss abelled the â€Å"Saints,” but the police did have frequent run-ins with members of the other group, which he labelled the â€Å"Roughnecks. ” The boys in the Saints came from respectable families, had good reputations and grades in school, and were careful not to get caught when breaking the law. By being polite, cordial, and apologeti c whenever confronted by the police, the Saints break loose labelling themselves as â€Å"deviants. ” In contrast, the Roughnecks came from families of lower socioeconomic status, had little reputations and grades in school, and were not careful about being caught when breaking the law.\r\nBy being hostile and venturous whenever confronted by the police, the Roughnecks were easily labelled by others and themselves as â€Å"deviants. ” In other words, while both groups committed crimes, the Saints were perceived to be â€Å"good” because of their polite behavior (which was attributed to their upper-class backgrounds) and the Roughnecks were seen as â€Å"bad” because of their insolent behavior (which was attributed to their lower-class backgrounds). As a result, the police always took action against the Roughnecks, but never against the Saints. Conclusion\r\nBecker, (1963) claims that laws are established for a reason, and behaviour that is defined as c riminal is dynamic and will change at bottom time. This shows that criminal behaviour is not relevant to the theory. However it is still to this day seen as debatable. However there is one known exception, many labelling theorists say the system is biased towards the lower class, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of arrests and convictions inwardly the American criminal justice system (Wellford, 1975). Becker is the usual source of radical variants of labelling.\r\nHis work implies there is no need to explain deviance in the first place, that it is in fact a very common social activity, a normal one, which only becomes deviant when it is to so labelled. Labelling itself then becomes confirming, a self-fulfilling prophecy, launching people on a deviant career. Today, one seldom finds labelling theories like those which predominated in the late 1960s. Certainly there are still social constructivist accounts of some type of deviance or another, and studies about the meanin g of crime to criminals and criminalizers are still done. A hift seems to have taken place around 1974 in which labelling theory accommodated itself to legalistic definitions, or at least a focus on state power. Modern labelling theories came to recognize that societies â€Å"create” crime by passing laws, and that the substantive nature of the law should be an object of study. Sometimes, these are called criminalization theories (Hartjen 1974), and they have some resemblance to societal reaction approaches, but they more closely fall into a line of products that criminologists trained in sociology call the sociology of law perspective or the study of law as a mechanism of social control.\r\nMost modern labelling theorists have been influenced by a critique of the underdog focus which was provided by Liazos (1972) when he said that sociologists need to stop perusing â€Å"nuts, sluts, and perverts. ” The one aspect of this theory that could be regarded positively is that it is very easy to understand and can be quickly explained, breaking down all criminal behavior into primary and secondary deviance with a few simple statements for each. Bibliography\r\nAlexander Liazos (1982) People First: An introduction to Social Problems Allyn & Bacon pp121 Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. upstart York: The uncaring Press Joseph Rowntree foundation (2009) http://www. jrf. org. uk/ accessed 12/03/09 Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social Pathology. New York: MacGraw-Hill Book Co. , Inc. Wellford, C. (1975). Labelling Theory and Criminology: An Assessment. Social Problems, Vol. 22, No. 3, 332-345\r\n'