LABELLING - Rule creation and moral crusades

https://quizlet.com/gb/526900825/labelling-theory-flash-cards/ https://quizlet.com/gb/882296586/interactionism-labelling-theory-crime-flash-cards/?isSignupSession

What did Becker argue about rule creation?

Becker's labelling theory (1963) argued that deviancy is not a quality of the act a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an “offender”

How do moral entrepreneurs make the laws?

The moral entrepreneur may press for the creation or enforcement of a norm for any number of reasons, altruistic or selfish.

What are some examples of moral entrepreneurs?

Tom Watson - phone hacking: a moral entrpreneur who campoaigned about the hacking of mobile phomnes by journalists.

Example - outlawing of Cannabis USA

In the United States, cannabis is legal in 38 of 50 states for medical use and 24 states for recreational use. 

Becker used the successful outlawing of cannabis in southern states in the USA in 1937 to show moral entrepreneurs and moral crusades in action.

Cannabis had been widely used in southern states before. Its outlawing was the result of a successful campaign waged by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics which saw cannabis as a growing menace in society. Through press campaigns and lobbying of senior politicians, the bureau was successful. However, Becker points out that the main reason for its success was because the campaign plugged into already commonly held values in the USA…

1. The belief that people ought to be in control of their actions and decisions

2. That pleasure for its own sake was wrong

3. Drugs were addictive and enslaved people

The term Becker used to describe the campaign was ‘moral crusade’ - a movement to pass laws.

Look at the examples of moral crusades. Why have some achieved their aims and others have/may not?

1. Hacking of phones by journalists (2000)

2. Smoking in public ban (2007)

3. Dangerous Dogs Act (1991)

What are some key factors?

• Moral crusade: Who were the moral entrepreneurs?

• Moral panic: Did the press get involved?

• Sensitisation: Were the public already concerned?

• Cultural values: Did the crusade ‘fit’ with existing beliefs?

• Power: Did the crusaders have access to power?

• Power: Did the labelled group have enough power to reject the deviant label?

Moral crusade: Who were the moral entrepreneurs?

• The victim and their family (Milly Dawler)

• Politicians: Noble figures such as Prime Minister David Cameron

• Ethical journalists from the Guardian

• Public interest pressure groups and activists

Moral panic: Did the press get involved?

The press go involved. The press (ethical journalists and media outlet, played a cruicial role in exposing the unethical practices.

Sensitisation: Were the public already concerned?

The public was cornered about privacy and media ethics to come extent. The high profile nature of victims, including celebrities, ordinary individuals etc.

Cultural values: Did the crusade ‘fit’ with existing beliefs?

Yes.

The crusade fit well with existing beliefs about privacy, ethical journalism and the protection of people from media exploutation

• Society broadly condemened invasions of privacy and unethical behaviour by the press.

Power: Did the crusaders have access to power?

Yes

Influencial politicians etc.

Power: Did the labelled group have enough power to reject the deviant label?

No

The overwhelming evidence along with public outrage made it difficult to defend their victims.

Successful Moral Crusades

• Hacking of phone by journalists (2000)

• Civil rights movement(1950) morl entrepreneurs: Martin Lurther King, Rosa Parks etc.

Unsuccessful Moral Crusades

War on Drugs (1980s - Now) - Moral entrepreneurs are law enforcement agencies

Factors for success crusade

• Access to power (support from political, legal and influential sectors)

• Strong and credible moral entrepreneurs

• Significant media movement

• Built on existing public concerns

• Alignment with cultural values

Strengths of the interactionist theory of crime

• It considers the role of labelling and reactions in generating more deviant behaviour.

• Provides an explanation for the marginalisation of certain groups after being labelled as ‘deviant’.

• Accounts for the role of meaning-making during micro-interactions in shaping a shared idea of a typical criminal.

• Explains the often discriminatory practices of law enforcement agencies.

• Accurately theorises that what constitutes deviance is not static, but rather context-dependent (for example, laws regarding homosexuality change from time to time and place to place).

Limitations of the interactionist theory of crime

• It focuses on the impacts of deviance at the expense of studying why deviant acts are committed in the first place (for example, criminals need to commit a crime before they can be labelled as deviant and potentially commit further crimes - why do they commit crimes initially?)

• Doesn’t explain the origins of the image of the ‘typical deviant’ beyond micro-level interactions.

• Interactionists don't explain who the social groups are that create rules about what counts as deviant acts. Additionally, they don't explain why certain actions are deemed deviant and others are not.

• A criticism of deviancy amplification theory is that while the media can exaggerate crime, it doesn’t cause it - to attribute the existence of all crime to media construction is reductive.

• Labelling theory is criticised for being too deterministic, as many people make an active choice to reject the labels they’ve been given.