CRIM3550 History of Criminological Theory

Module III

Robert Merton 1910-2003 Bio Sketch: Basis for Fame/Infamy the Structural Function

As a major proponent of the “structural functional” sociological approach for the study of crime and deviance

Robert Merton, Basis for Fame/Infamy: Development of Anomie

crime and deviance, which was the leading sociological explanation of these problems during the 1950’s
through the 60’s and inspired some of President Kennedy’s and Johnson’s “The Great Society’s” social programs enacted back then.

Robert Merton, Basis for Fame/Infamy: President and Sutherland award

President of American Sociological Association, Won the Edwin Sutherland Award from American
Society of Criminology.

Robert Merton, Basis for Fame/Infamy: inspiring several criminologists

inspired several-later day criminologists to further develop and refine it, including Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin’s Delinquency and Opportunity.

Robert Merton: Birthplace and Longest Location

Born 1910 in Philadelphia, where he grew up and
attended Temple University. Worked and lived
in N.Y., N.Y. for most of the rest of his life.

Robert Merton: Educational Background

Temple University, B. A. (sociology)
Harvard University PH.D. (sociology)

Robert Merton, Critical Early/Later life experiences: Raise by family

He was raised in a Jewish family over top of their family diary store. Father worked as a truck driver.

Robert Merton, Critical Early/Later life experiences: scholarship to attend Temple Uni

Won scholarship to attend Temple University. While attending Temple, he changed named from
“Meyer Schkolnick” to “Robert King Merton,” learned to play tennis, foxtrot, and acquired taste for classical music. Changed it to more anglo-saxon

Robert Merton, Critical Early/Later life experiences: Admitted to Harvard Grad School

admitted to Harvard graduate school, where he meet Talcott Parsons, an older and more
advanced graduate student in the sociology department, who took him under his wing, and guided his interest toward structural-functionalism.

Robert Merton, Critical Early/Later life experiences: Durkheim

Influenced by earlier work of Durkheim

Robert Merton: Key Noted Works

“Social Structure and Anomie” and “Continuities in Theory of Social Structure and Anomie” Chapters # 6 and #7 of his 1968 book, Social theory and Social Structure.

Robert Merton, Basic Assumptions behind Key Ideas: view of “social system”

Society should be viewed as a “social system,” in which the crime problem may be seen as a symptom
of the degree of its malfunctioning, that is improper operation. If the social system is “out of whack,” then it produces a “ major crime problem.” When it operates correctly, however, then crime is only a minor crime problem in society.

Robert Merton, Nature of Key Ideas: theory based on 4 ideas

1. Social system
2. Condition of Anomie
3. Two Social/Cultural Forces that produce Anomie
4. Five individual Adaptations that societal members make while living under
conditions of high anomie.

Robert Merton, Nature of Key Ideas: Social System two components #1-Cultural

Values: goals that we should strive to obtain.

Norms: social rules that we should follow in obtaining goals

Robert Merton, Nature of Key Ideas: Social System two components Cultural Malintegration

Expediency: goals become more important than
norms.

Ritualism: following norms become more important
than obtaining goals

Robert Merton, Nature of Key Ideas: Social System two components #2-Social

stratification of society on the basis of wealth and prestige of its members into different social classes: upper, middle, and lower.

Robert Merton, Nature of Key Ideas: #3 Anomie

Drawing on Durkheim, Merton defines it as the breakdown in the norms and values that societal members believe in because of their inability to reach the goals by following the norms.

Robert Merton, Nature of Key Ideas: #3 two social/cultural forces produce Anomie

Unequal distribution of legitimate opportunities among the members of different social classes for upward
mobility

Our culture is mal-integrated because it strongly favors expediency

Robert Merton, Nature of Key Ideas: #4 high anomie

Individual adaptations that societal members make while living in society suffering from high anomie. Adaptations refer to 5 modes of adjustments which they can make in their norms, values, or both, which vary by their social class or position in the social structure

Robert Merton: Criticisms #1 Misnomers

Many of Merton’s modes of adjustments are misnomers, i.e. mislabeled. Which ones suffer from this malady??

Robert Merton: Criticisms #2 over prediction of crime

Over-predicts amount of crime in lower class and under-predicts amount in upper class.

Robert Merton: Criticisms #3 Retreatism being cause of Anomie

Retreatism may be the cause of Anomie, not the effect of it, so the causal direction may be the reverse of what Merton argued. If people are retreating from society by abusing alcohol and drugs, then how can they possibly expect to attain any life goals besides getting wasted.

Robert Merton: Criticisms #4 Solutions to cause of crime being anomie

If the cause of crime is anomie, then the solution to a major crime problem would be leveling the playing field-what Merton would call equalizing “access to opportunities” for upward social mobility. The only way this could be done is by making a class-less society. Merton never advocated a
class less society, because he wanted to increase legitimate opportunities only to the level that would prevent critical mass of members of society from adapting to anomie by engaging in rebellion

Robert Merton: Criticisms #5 False Assumptions of modes of adaption

the modes of adaptation to anomie are mutually exclusive and unchanging when, in
fact, they can simultaneously make several of these different adaptations and change over time the
particular adaptations that they make. For example, drug addicts must often innovate to pay for their drugs through embezzlement, forgery, robbery, and prostitution.

Edwin Lemert 1912-1996 Bio Sketch: Basis for Fame/Infamy “labelling theory”

Lemert is famous for becoming the main progenitor of what was later to became known as “labelling
theory,” but which he originally called “societal reaction” theory of crime and deviance.

Edwin Lemert, Birthplace. Longest Location or Residence

Born in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1912. He spent his formative years, including college, in Midwest
where he also taught in different colleges until his 30’s

Edwin Lemert, Education

B.A. (sociology) Miami of Ohio
PH.D (sociology) Ohio State University

Edwin Lemert, Critical Early/Later Life Experiences affecting Ideas S.W in Cincinnati

Worked one year as social worker in Cincinnati before deciding to enroll Ohio State’s graduate
sociology program. Apparently, this led him to develop a cynical perspective toward agents of social control.

Edwin Lemert, Critical Early/Later Life Experiences affecting Ideas UCLA dept. of socio

At age 31, he was offered a position at UCLA”s department of sociology where came into contact with many already or soon to become prominent sociologists. Then U of Davis founding chair for socio. recruiting many young academics, who later made important contributions to the study of crime and deviance

Edwin Lemert, Critical Early/Later Life Experiences affecting Ideas main progenitor

Although Lemert was main progenitor of labelling theory, Howard Becker, popularized the theory inhis book the Outsiders, which ironically led to Lemert becoming known as its real progenitor.

Edwin Lemert Key Noted Works

Social Pathology: a Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic Behavior (1951), Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control (1967, 1972).

Edwin Lemert Basic Assumptions Behind Key Ideas crime/deviance w social control

it may be true that the problem of crime and deviance in society leads to the
application of social control, it is equally true that the application of social control. the alleged cure
to crime and deviance can often make the crime and deviance problem worse rather than better. This turned the field of criminology on its head because it switched the focus from solely on why people criminal and deviant acts to how the criminal justice system reacts to their commission of these acts.

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas, three main ideas are:

1) Criminal Differentiation (2) Societal Reaction and (3) Criminal Individuation

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Criminal Differentiation:

Criminality is distinguished from other forms of social conduct by the fact that it can potentially elicit disapproval from official representatives of the state.

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - 3 types of Criminality

a.) Individual Criminality, b.) Situational Criminality, c.) Systemic Criminality

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Individual Criminality

According to him, it “emanates from within the skin of the person.” They are idiosyncratic factors or personal quirks that lie behind his or her. conduct. Examples: psychosis, fetishes, religious or political
fanaticism, exhibitionism, voyeurism (peeping Toms),and porn addict, sex freak.

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Situational Criminality

situational factors, such as special opportunity, exaggerated need, and social pressure, are more important in producing their criminality than are individual factors, so that the context (i.e., time and place) and its occurrence is critically important. Based on the amount of people confronting the same situation at the same time and place two sub-types can be further distinguished isolated from cumulative situational. Examples: suicide vs. mass suicide

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Systematic Criminality

Other are sporadically displayed. people regularly engage in the criminality usually in conjunction with their membership in a criminal subculture or gang that facilitates its commission (“there is power in numbers”)

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Societal Reaction

the overall response of a community or group to criminality and those who are believed to have engaged in it.

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Societal Reaction the formalities and relationship

formal (executed by official agents)
informal (executed by everyday people)

Reciprocal relationship between the
two types of S-R with one increasing the
severity of the other in an endless
cycle.

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Societal Reaction problematic application

right people must witness the conduct at wrong time.

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Proportionality of Societal Reaction

punishment fits the crime

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - disproportionality of Societal Reaction inflated v deflated

punishment does not fit the crime.

“Inflated reaction”- “too severe for crime
done”
“Deflated reaction”- “too lenient for
crime done”

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Factors Behind Disproportionate S-R in CJ System

a). ritual adherence to formal
procedures and practices
b). public outcry for expedient
application of S-R

c). insufficient resources and personnel
d). discretionary and discriminatory
practices
e). wealth and power of suspected
perpetrators

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Criminal Individuation

degree to which an individual’s criminality has affected their life organization in terms of their
identities, sources of social status, and primary social roles that they perform. In other words, how far have they progressed in their criminal careers and the emotional satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their
degree of progression into a criminal life style. Lemert distinguished two markedly different types of progression into a criminal career: 1.primary and 2.secondary criminals

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Criminal Individuation Primary Criminals

a person who only sporadically engages in individual or situational criminality and whose criminality has not significantly affected their identity, social status, or enactment of their primary social roles in life (i.e. father, mother, son, daughter, student, bread-winner). Includes approximately 90% of societal members.

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - Criminal Individuation Secondary Criminals

a person who usually engages in systematic criminality and whose criminality has definitely significantly
affected their identity, social status, or enactment of their primary social roles in life. There are two sub-types of secondary criminals which need to be distinguished:1.Adjusted and Maladjusted.
Latter more open to reformation than the former. Includes approximately, 10% of society, who responsible for a like amount of the crime problem. Thus, it is believed an estimated 10% of societal members, who are repeat offenders commit 90% of all serious crimes.

Basic problem or question for Lemert: How does a primary criminal become a secondary criminal?

According to him, this happens over a progressively reciprocal process whereby increasing displays criminality leads to increasingly harsher informal societal reaction. This continues until the tolerance quotient of

Edwin Lemert Nature of Key Ideas - 9 Stages in Progressive Reciprocal Process of Becoming a secondary (career) criminal

Stage 1. sporadic criminality
Stage 2. informal S-R
Stage 3. more sporadic criminality
Stage 4. stronger informal S-R
Stage 5. further criminality
Stage 6. tolerance quotient of group exceeded
Resulting in formal S-R
Stage 7. division (splitting apart) of conventional identity
Stage 8. critical turning point: accepting or
rejecting newly emerging criminal
identity
Stage 9: accept new criminal identity and become a
secondary criminal by falling into trap
of self-fulfilling prophesy.

Edwin Lemert Critiques: causes of secondary deviance and criminality is the formal societal reaction

the argument for this it is much more important than are the various possible causes of primary
deviance. In advancing this argument, he overlooks that without primary criminality, there would be no secondary criminality because primary criminality is usually a requirement for a person to become a secondary criminality. strong empirical evidence from studies conducted for the purpose of evaluating
the efficacy of incapacitation that most felonies are committed by new felony offenders, not recidivists (repeat felony offenders. Thus, the incarceration of all repeat felony offenders, which would not be
economically feasible, could not possibly prevent most of the felonies that are committed because most of our felony offenders do not have prior felony convictions on their record that could have made them eligible to receive prison sentences. More importantly, for our present concerns, it shows that people often commit even serious crimes before they have ever receive a severe formal societal reaction.

Edwin Lemert Critiques: people may often even regularly engage in crime

so people may often engage in crime for considerable period before they are ever become they ever receive a severe formal societal reaction from the state, such as a long prison sentence. Since people can often be “first offenders,” who have regularly engaged in crime for a relatively long time, this proves that a formal societal reactions is not always necessary for people to become secondary criminals, who systemically engage in serious crime. Prime examples would be a serial killer or mass murders with no prior record of committing serious violent crimes, but other less dramatic examples also exists, such as chronic spouse abusers and date rapists.

Howard Becker Bio Sketch Basis for claim to infamy/fame

Popularized the theory of labelling theory that Lemert had earlier developed. Author of the long
Classic and best-selling ethnography, Outsiders: Studies in Sociology of Deviance. One of America’s
foremost experts in the use of traditional qualitative methods in sociology

Howard Becker: Birthplace and Longest Location of Residence

Becker, who was born in Chicago, grew up on the Westside during the depression in a solid, middle
class, Jewish family. Father, who worked in advertising, was able to provide for them a middle-class life style even during the throes of the depression

Howard Becker: Education Background

B.A. University of Chicago (general education)
M.A. University of Chicago (sociology)
PH.D. University of Chicago (sociology)

Howard Becker - Critical Early/Later Experiences: Professional piano player/joined a union

Played piano professionally joining musicians union at age 15. His first love was jazz and he
played in jazz clubs from 1940’s to 1970’s. His love for playing jazz, finally took a back seat to his love of doing sociological research.

Howard Becker - Critical Early/Later Experiences: Northwestern Uni gig and challenging conventional views

at age 16, he was introduced to marihuana, which thereafter he continued to regularly use. His
experience playing piano in jazz bars and using marihuana led him to challenge conventional views about deviants and deviance. “I was a marihuana smoker before I was a marihuana
researcher.. I came into contact with drug users because I was one, you could say, and I was in a
trade where many other were too.” He added “Many people.. who went on to have quite conventional
careers spent a time (as I did), in the music business, where they ran into people who smoked
marihuana . . . could not be persuaded by the scare talk.”

Howard Becker - Critical Early/Later Experiences: Grad student at Chicago

enrolled as a grad student at Chicago, he majored in English Literature, but after reading the Black Metropolis: a Study of Negro Life in a Northern City, by St. Clair Drake and Horace Cayton, published in 1945, Becker switched his major to sociology. The sociology department at the time had several leading American sociologist on its faculty, including Everett Hughes, an expert on sociology of occupations, who became Becker’s mentor and taught him how to write simple and direct prose. It was Becker’s contact with Hughes which led Becker to view deviance as an occupation and to use qualitative methods of research.

Howard Becker - Critical Early/Later Experiences: Youth hindering job access

Since Becker received his PH.D. at age 23, his youthful appearance prevented him from obtaining
a job as a regular professor. For over a decade, he worked as a research associate at different
research institutes until he finally landed a faculty position at Northwestern University, where he taught for several decades.

Howard Becker - Critical Early/Later Experiences: founding members of the society

He was one of the founding members of the Society, for the Study of Social Problems, for which he
later became a president.

Howard Becker - Key Noted Works for Criminologists

Outsiders: Studies in Sociology of Deviance
(1963, 2018)
Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your
Research while Doing It (1998)

Howard Becker - Basic assumptions behind key ideas: people’s acts of deviance and their deviant careers do not occur instantaneously

Becker assumed that both people’s acts of deviance and their deviant careers do not occur
instantaneously, but evolve over time during a problematic, contingent process comprised of
different identifiable stages. Before you can pass into the later stages of the process, you must fulfill
the conditions necessary for passage through the earlier stages. Thus, for him, the job of the criminologist was to identify not only stages through people commit deviant acts and pass through during
the progression of their deviant careers, but also the sequence (that is, specific order) in which these
stages must be completed.

Howard Becker - Basic assumptions behind key ideas: best way to study deviance was naturalistically through the use of qualitative methods

This entails studying criminals as much is possible, in the natural habitats in which they live and commit their deviant acts taking into account their perspectives toward their deviant actions, as well as, employing data collection techniques that respect rather than distort their actual life experiences. Becker describes his view on this important matter, He concludes that the type of studies that we most desperately need to conduct are naturalistic ones “in which the person doing the research has achieved close contact with those he studies , so that he can become aware of the complex and manifold character of the deviant activity.

Howard Becker - Basic assumptions behind key ideas: anti-determinism

anti-complete determinism and anti-complete free-will, but pro-contingent causation or limited
determinism as well as limited free- will. While Becker recognized that people do make decisions, such
as whether to commit or refrain from committing deviant acts and whether they should or should not
pursue a deviant career in their lives, he also realized they do not control all the conditions under
which their decisions in life are made.

Case in Point: Becker’s Two Part Study of “Becoming A Marihuana User for Pleasure” and
“Marihuana Use And Social Control:”

Becker, who published this study in the early 50’s, stated that he “conducted 50 interviews with marihuana users.” He says that “although in the end over half of the 50 interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half were conducted with a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions.” Becker also acknowledges that his “sample is, of course in no sense ‘random’ since no one knows the nature of the universe from which it would have to be drawn” (p. 43). Now no longer facing any fear of arrest, he openly admits to his own regularly usage of marijuana and drawing on his participant observation of its usage for this study

Findings from the First Part of Becker’ Study: “Becoming a Marihuana User for Pleasure” Stage 1

first step involves the person learning from others the proper smoking technique so that enough of the drug will be consumed to produce effect. Becker points out that beginners do not “ordinarily” feel anything the first time they smoke marihuana because they don’t use the proper consumption technique. Thus, they do not secure a sufficient dosage of the drug for its effects to appear. Becker found that no one “continued marihuana use for pleasure without learning a technique that supplied a sufficient dosage for the effects of the drug to appear.

Findings from the First Part of Becker’ Study: “Becoming a Marihuana User for Pleasure” Stage 2

interpretive process necessary for persons to smoke marihuana for
pleasure is that they learn from others how to
“get high” from its effects. According to
Becker, there are two essential requirements
for “being high.”

Findings from the First Part of Becker’ Study: “Becoming a Marihuana User for Pleasure” Stage 2 the 2 requirements 2 being high

1. There must be the presence of bodily sensations caused by the marihuana
use and 2. There must be “the recognition of
these symptoms(sensations and their connection
by the user with his use of the drug.” Thus,
“it is not enough . . . that the sensations be
present alone; they do not automatically
provide the experience of being high.”

Findings from the First Part of Becker’ Study: “Becoming a Marihuana User for Pleasure” Stage 2 sesnations and experience

More experienced users help the beginner learn to perceive the marihuana produced sensations by describing to them the symptoms of being “high” which he then can apply to his own experience. This enables the beginner to isolate the bodily sensations of marijuana in streams of his own experience and
thereby point out to himself the “something different” in his stream of experience which results from being high on weed. Becker found that in every case in which marihuana use was continued “the user had acquired the necessary words/concepts with which to express to himself the fact that he was experiencing new sensations caused by the drug.

Findings from the First Part of Becker’ Study: “Becoming a Marihuana User for Pleasure” Stage 3

necessary in the interpretive process for persons to smoke marihuana for pleasure is that they learn to
enjoy the sensations that they have previously learned to perceive. In other words, they must
learn to enjoy the feeling of being high on marihuana. Becker points out that “marihuana-produced sensations are not automatically or necessarily pleasurable.” Rather, “the taste for such experience is a socially acquired one.” In other words, other users must teach the beginner to regard being high on marihuana as an “enjoyable experience.” The beginner identifies being high on marihuana as enjoyable
as a result of the “favorable definition” of the experience that he acquires from other users.
Becker found that no one begins to use marihuana for pleasure or continues its use unless they learn to define its sensations as enjoyable. He notes that some beginners early experiences with marihuana are “unpleasant” and that they will not continue to use it unless they learn to redefine its sensations as pleasure-producing

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” overcome social control

one must also learn how to overcome the different kinds of obstacles that the social control of the drug creates to prevent your usage of it.

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” degrees of marijuana usage

(1) the beginner,(2) occasional user, and (3) regular user levels. During each one of these stages or levels of marihuana usage, people must confront and successfully overcome the same three kinds of
obstacles: (1)supply, (2)secrecy, and (3)morality.

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Supply, Beginner

Supply refers to your degree of access to marihuana which depends on the nature of the source of your
supply. Each new level of marihuana usage requires that you obtain greater access to the drug. To
enter the beginning stage, you must come into contact with a group in which marihuana is not only used, but whose members introduce you to its usage.

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Supply, Occasional

you must remain in contact with a group whose members make it available for your consumption. Thus, your usage of marihuana becomes dependent on your contact with groups whose members use marihuana and the their generosity.

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Supply, Regular

Finally to become regular user of marihuana you must develop a your own personal contacts with marihuana dealers, so you can purchase your own supply, which enables you to consume it when, where, with whomever you wish

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Secrecy

Secrecy refers to the need for you to control information about your marihuana usage from others
who may look unfavorably on your usage of it. As with supply, each stage of of your use requires a
different degree of secrecy or control of information about the frequency of your usage

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Secrecy, Beginner

the rarity of your marihuana usage makes it highly unlikely that non-users will learn about your use of it. Even if they should become aware of it, you can easily dismiss it as merely innocent experimentation on your part.

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Secrecy, Occasional

you can usually keep secret the increased frequency of your marihuana usage by making sure that you only consume it during occasions when anti-marihuana users are absent.

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Secrecy, Regular

the heighten frequency of your use of marihuana would seem to make your usage of impossible to keep concealed from others. However, regular users soon learn this is not necessarily the case because they can utilize two relatively effective strategies to prevent anti- marihuana users from finding about their usage. According to Becker, the most extreme one is to reduce your contacts with anti-users to almost zero. A second, less extreme, but more daring strategy is, as he puts it, to use marihuana “right under their noses.” Surprisingly, keeping non-users from detecting you are high from its effects, is much easier than is popularly believed. The trick is not to let them witness your consumption of it.

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Morality

Morality refers to the moral prohibitions against drug usage that society creates to dissuade
marihuana usage among its members. Becker describes this as follows: “the basic moral imperative which operates here are those which require the individual to be responsible for his own welfare, and be able to control his behavior rationally. The stereotype of the dope fiend portrays a person who violates these imperatives.” During each stage of marihuana use, you must negate the moral prohibitions that seek to prevent you from escalating to a higher level of marihuana usage.

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Morality, Beginner

you can effectively negate moral prohibitions against your usage on grounds that you are merely an
experimenter and you should not reject something without, at least, first trying it. Plus, the
members of group that you find yourself in are exhorting you to try it. Since you also observing others in the group using marihuana without any apparent moral qualms or reservations about doing it, why you should have real reason to fear trying it.

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Morality, Occasional

you must learn rationalizations from other more experienced drug users that negate society’s
prohibitions against your increased usage of it. Becker notes three such rationalizations that can be used for this purpose: (1) conventional members of society regularly engage in much more harmful
practices, such as consuming hard liquor; (2) you control your marihuana usage, it does not control
you because you are the one who decides, if, when, where, and with whom you consume marihuana.

Findings from Becker’s Second Study: “Marihuana Use and Social Control” - Obstacle Morality, Regular

then you must negate the popular moral stereotype of a dope fiend as person who has
become a slave to drugs. To counter this popular myth, you can follow the advice of more experienced
users who you have befriended by giving yourself the following self- test, which Becker succinctly describes in this way: “use is given up and consequences awaited— and when nothing untoward
occurs, the user is able to draw the conclusion that there is nothing to fear.” He concludes that:
“a person will feel free to use marihuana to the degree that he comes to regard conventional
conceptions of it as the uninformed views of outsiders and replaces those conceptions with the
‘inside’ view he has acquired through his experience with the drug in the company of other
users.”

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - Defining Deviance

Becker explains that “social groups create deviance by making the
rules whose infraction constitutes deviance and by applying those rules to particular people and
labelling them as outsiders.” (1991:8). He adds that a “deviant is one to whom that label has been
applied.” Finally, he observes that “Whether a given act is deviant or not depends in part on the
nature of the act (that is, whether or not it violates some rule) and in part on what other people do about it.” (p.13). Thus, for him, deviance is a product of social interaction

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - 4 types of Deviance: Falsely Accused

a person whose reacted to as a deviant, but who has not broken any of the group’s rules. According to Becker, a falsely accused person has been given the proverbial “bum rap,” which is also described, as having been “railroaded.”

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - 4 types of Deviance: True Conformist

a person whose not reacted to as a deviant and who, in fact, has not broken of a group’s rules.

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - 4 types of Deviance: True Deviant

a person whose reacted to as a deviant and who, in fact, has broken the rules. In
contemporary vernacular, a true deviant is one has been “outed,” publicly labelled as a deviant

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - 4 types of Deviance: Secret Deviant

a person whose is not reacted to as a deviant, but who, in fact, has broken the rules. According to contemporary vernacular, a secret deviant is one who is in the closet, but has not yet been “outed.”

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - Deviant Career

a deviant career emerges over a process, during which there occurs an elapse of
time, it may profitably be seen as unfolding in terms of a sequence or time ordered stages

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - Deviant Career: Stage 1

Acting on a Deviant Impulse that is usually Restrained (held in check) by your normal Moral Restraints Becker suggests that all people from time to time experience deviant impulses, but because of their “conventional moral sensibilities” do not act on them, unless they have learn from others “techniques of neuralizations” that allow them to rationalize their breaking of a group’s rule, which they would ordinarily obey, if it is done under one of the four extenuating circumstances

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - Deviant Career: Stage 1 da circumstances

(1)it happened during a situation beyond their immediate control, so that in effect
they had little real choice in the matter,(2) there was no real victim
because they did not seriously harm or injure anyone during their
actions, (3) while another person may have suffered serious injuries or harm, the victim was not an innocent citizen, but a bad person, and thereby, he or she richly and justly. deserved the injuries received at their hands. (4) they condemn their labelers for hypocrisy for engaging in even far
worst moral depravities than they did.

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - Deviant Career: Stage 2 branding people

Branding people who actually or only allegedly engage deviant actions: According to Becker, ”One of the most crucial steps In the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behavior is likely to be the experience of being caught and publicly labelled as a deviant.” He adds that “being caught and branded as a deviant has important consequences for one’s further participation and self-image. The most important consequences is a drastic change in the individual’s public identity. Committing the improper act and being publicly caught at it place him in a new status.” He has now been proven to be a person, who was different from the kind he or she had earlier been mistakenly assumed to be. “He has been labelled a ‘fairy,’ ‘dope fiend,’ ‘nut’ or ‘lunatic, and treated accordingly.”

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - Deviant Career: Stage 3 joining deviant group

“A final step in the career of a deviant is movement into an organized deviant group. Three
important consequences for a deviant career that follow from joining deviant group

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - Deviant Career: 1st consequence solidification

First, it solidifies his or her identity as an “outsider.” Regarding this solidification, Becker observed
that “When a person makes a definite move into an organized group -- or when he realizes and –- accepts the fact that that he has already done so, it has a powerful impact on his conception of himself.” More specifically, he concludes that “membership in such a group solidifies a deviant identity.

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - Deviant Career: 2nd consequence deviant ideology

provides them with rationalizations and justify their new deviant life-style. With respect to
this ideology, Becker states that ideologies “furnish the individual with reasons for continuing the line of [deviant]activity he has begun. A person who quiets his own doubts by adopting the rational moves into a
more principled and consistent kind of deviance than was possible for him before adopting it.” This ideology invariably includes “a general repudiation of the conventional moral rules, conventional institutions, and the entire conventional world.”

Howard Becker, Nature of Key Ideas - Deviant Career: 3rd consequence learning from membership

how to maintain their deviant activities in a hostile world. Regarding the maintenance
of their deviant life-style, Becker notes that after joining a deviant group, a deviant “learns how to carry on
his deviant activity with a minimum of trouble. All the problems he faces in evading enforcement of the rule he is breaking have been faced before by others. Solutions have been worked out. . . Every deviant group has a great stock lore on such subjects and new recruits
learns it quickly (p. 37).

Howard Becker, Critiques old wine new bottle

Lemert’s earlier “societal reaction theory” into
a hip new bottle, which he called
“labelling theory.” How? Becker merely
re-defined primary deviants as people
whose “master status” is as a conformist,
whose identity is as a conventional
person, and who has among their
auxiliary traits, a strong need for
adventure or new experiences that
creates deviant impulses (“wild hairs”)
that ever now then lead them to
explore deviant activities). Conversely,
Becker re-defined secondary deviants as
people whose master status and identity
are as “outsiders” and whose auxiliary
traits are closely associated with or an direct outgrowth of their deviant
activities. As far as popularizing
Lemert’s original theory, Becker new
bottle for an old wine or repackaging of
Lemert’s earlier ideas was a great
success..better writing.

Howard Becker, Critiques emphasized explaining secondary deviance much more than the explanation of primary deviance.

overlooked that without primary criminality, there would not be
any secondary criminality, except on the infrequent occasions on which people are
falsely accused of committing deviant
acts on a “wild hair” or unexpected
deviant impulse from unknown origin.
Neither one of them, explain why
people experience such wild hairs in the
first place. Instead, Becker retreats to
the notion of techniques of
neutralization to explain why people act
on their deviant impulses, only after they
have experience a wild hair—-something
which, just pops up in our minds for no
apparent reason. Contrary to Becker,
however, our impulses have identifiable
sources or origins, some of which are
social in nature, such as our prior social
experience. Becker inadvertently
acknowledges the validity of this criticism of labeling theory in his candid
admission that: “we are not so much
interested in the person who commits
a deviant act once as in the person who
sustains a pattern of deviance over a long
period of time, who makes deviance a way
of life.

Howard Becker, Critiques “closest deviants”

Becker had a hard time explaining the existence
of what he referred to as “closest
deviants,” whose secrecy regarding
their regular participation in deviant
activities prevented them from becoming publicly denounced as a deviant

Howard Becker, Critiques “victim-less” v deviant activities

critically examining what he calls,
“moral crusaders,” he fails to
distinguish “victim-less” criminal or
deviant activities, which do not
seriously harm the participants who
voluntarily engage in them, from
deviant and criminal activities that
seriously harm the participants, whether
or not they voluntarily engaged in them.
Similarly, he failed to distinguish acts
of rule-breaking that are deviant, but
not criminal, such fondling your
privates in public while fully clothed,
from acts which are criminal, but not
deviant, such as operating a small-time gambling den without a permit, and from
acts of rule breaking, which are criminal
and deviant, such forcible rape, child
molesting, mayhem, kidnapping, arson,
and robbery.

Howard Becker, Critiques “meddling busybodies” v whistle blowers

Becker acknowledges that decrying
moral crusaders as “meddling
busybodies,” who have “humanitarian
motives,” such as people that demand that
action be taken against spouse and child
abusers, and distributors of hard drug
also constitutes an act of negatively
labeling people, he missed a golden
opportunity to more forcibly make
his argument by distinguishing
meddling busybodies and whistle blowers
from responsible citizens who are carrying out their duties as concerned
members of their community. For example,
although citizens who report to the
police victim-less deviant acts might
justly merit the label “meddling
busybodies,” citizens who report who
report child and spouse abuse would not
deserve being labelled as one. Much the
same could be said in the cases where
citizens report to the police acts that
are criminal, but not deviant verses
citizens who report acts that are both
criminal and deviant. Thus whether or not
you are a meddling busybody or good
citizen depends on the seriousness of the
rule breaking of what people report to
police.