Strengths & Limitations of Labelling Theory

Highlights the Social Construction of Deviance

STRENGTH

• shows that no act is inherently deviant - only becomes this when society labels it as this

• e.g. Marijuana might be criminalised in one country but legal in another

Explains the Role of Power and Inequality

STRENGTH

• Becker & Cicourel highlight how the powerful are more likely to label the powerless as deviant

• explains why some groups are over-represented in crime

Provides insight into Negative Effects of Labelling

STRENGTH

• Lemert’s concept of primary and secondary deviance - explains how societal reaction can push people into deviant careers

• e.g. youth caught stealing: leads to exclusion from school and future employment - reinforcing deviant behaviour

Challenges Official Crime Statistics

STRENGTH

• suggests that crime stats reflect who gets caught and labelled - not who actually commits crime

• encourages more critical thinking about the reliability of official data

Fails to Explain the Origins of Deviance

LIMITATION

• Doesn’t explain why people commit deviant acts in the first place (primary deviance)

• only happens after they’re labelled

Deterministic Tendencies

LIMITATION

• overly deterministic - implying that everyone who is labelled will internalise the label

• This is not always the case! - downplays the ability of individuals to reject or resist labels

Limited Scope

LIMITATION

• focuses mainly on minor crimes

• ignores serious crimes like murder or sexual assault - where social reaction is often less ambiguous

Doesn’t Consider Broader Social Structures

LIMITATION

• pays less attention to structural causes of crime (poverty, inequality or socialisation - Marxist & Functionalist explanations)