Crime & Deviance: Interactionalism & Labelling theory and crime

Interactionist & Labelling theory on crime

They believe crime and deviance are socially constructed. It is not the nature of the act that makes it deviant but society’s reaction to it. Therefore, a deviant is simply someone who has been labelled as such.

\
They do not take OCS at face value as they believe that at every stage of the criminal justice system, agents of social control make decisions about whether or not to proceed to the next stage. This outcome depends on the label they attach to the individual.

State two ways that crime and deviance are social constructions.

1. Historical differences
2. Cultural differences

Describe two ways that crime and deviance are social constructions.

One way in which crime and deviance are social constructs is because of historical differences. Behaviours and actions that were once seen as criminal no longer are, such as homosexuality. Behaviours and actions that were once legal are now illegal, like using certain drugs.

\
Another way in which crime and deviance are social constructions is because of cultural differences. Crimes are determined by the state, meaning that there are differences from country to country. Additionally, cultures will have different norms, meaning that deviancy will vary from culture to culture.

Four ways that crime and deviance are social constructions.

1. Historical differences
2. Cultural differences
3. Contextual differences
4. Generational differences

Becker (Labelling theorist)

“Social groups create deviance by creating the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders".

\
For Becker, a deviant is simply someone whom the label has been successfully applied and deviant behaviour is simply behaviour that people so label. Interactions believe deviance is defined by society and therefore socially constructed.

Typifications (Labelling theorist, Cicourel)

Officers have their ‘common-sense’ theories and stereotypes of what the typical delinquent is like leading to more policing of those people leading to more arrests and confirming their stereotypes.

Typifications (Piliavin & Briar)

In 1964 (before Cicourel’s typifications theory), they found those police decisions on whether to arrest youth or not were largely based on physical cues (such as manner and dress) from which they made judgements about the youth’s character. These decisions were often influenced by gender, class and ethnicity.

Negotiation of justice (Labelling theorist, Cicourel)

Negotiation of justice: When people don’t fit officers’ typical delinquent’ image (such as if they were middle class) they were more likely to be counselled, warned and released rather than prosecuted as those who did as they or their parents could negotiate with the police and convince them that the possible delinquent was sorry and would stay out of trouble.

Primary and secondary deviance (Labelling theorist, Lemert)

Primary deviance – acts that aren't publicly labelled as deviant and so have no effect on an individual’s self-concept.

\
Secondary deviance- A result of society’s reaction. Labelling --> SFP

Master status (Labelling theorist, Lemert)

Master status- Once a person has been labelled, others may only see them as that label and therefore it becomes their controlling identity that overrides all others.

Young’s study on hippy marijuana users in Notting Hill (1971)

Can be used as an example of the effect of primary and secondary deviance.

\
Originally, drugs were just peripheral to the hippies’ lifestyle (primary deviance). However, due to persecution and labelling by the control culture, the hippies increasingly saw themselves as outsiders and so began to retreat into more closed groups and developed into a deviant subculture where drug use became a central activity (secondary deviance). This attracted further attention from the police and a self-fulling prophecy.

Deviance amplification spiral (S.Cohen)

Cohen studied how the media has often demonised youth culture.  This happened to ***mods and Rockers*** in 1964 who were seen as modern-day ***folk devils*** who threatened social order. 

\
The moral panic led to youths being arrested more and therefore more media attention led to the demonisation of mods and rockers and marginalisation which lead to more deviance. Although, his research found that actual acts of deviance were minimal.

Reintegrative shaming (Labelling theorist, Braithwaite)

Disintegrative shaming- the offender is also labelled as bad (along with the offence) and excluded from society

\
Reintegrative shaming- labels act not actor Avoids pushing people into secondary deviance but still focuses on negative impact of their actions.

Deviance amplification spiral

This idea says that sensationalist reporting by the newspapers distorts the act of crime or deviance and increases public awareness.  Public pressure is put on the police and courts to act.  This creates a ***moral panic*** where certain acts or groups are seen as a threat to social order. This causes more deviance to occur leading to more control and so on.

\
An example of this can be seen in Young’s study of hippies.

Labelling theory evaluation

•Deterministic

•Ignore real victims of crime

•Marxists argue fail to explain origin of the labels