Interactionism and labelling theory

The social construction of crime

Rather than simply taking the definition of crime for granted, labelling theorists are interested in how and why certain acts come to be defined or labelled as criminal in the first place. They argue that no act is inherently criminal or deviant in itself, in all situations and at all times. Instead, it only comes to be so when others label it as such. In other words, it is not the nature of the act that makes it deviant, but the nature of society's reaction to the act.

In this view, therefore, deviance is in the eye of the beholder. As Howard Becker (1963) puts it:

'Social groups create deviance by creating the rules whose infraction [breaking] constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders.'

For Becker, therefore, a deviant is simply someone to whom the label has been successfully applied, and deviant behaviour is simply behaviour that people label.

This leads labelling theorists to look at how and why rules and laws get made. They are particularly interested in the role. of what Becker calls moral entrepreneurs. These are people who lead a moral campaign to change the law. However, Becker argues that this new law invariably has two effects:

• The creation of a new group of 'outsiders' - outlaws or deviants who break the new rule.

• The creation or expansion of a social control agency (such as the police, courts, probation officers etc) to enforce the rule and impose labels on offenders.

For example, Platt (1969) argues that the idea of juvenile delinquency was originally created as a result of a campaign by upper-class Victorian moral entrepreneurs, aimed at protecting young people at risk. This established juveniles as a separate category of offender with their own.courts. and it enabled the state to extend its powers beyond criminal offences involving the young, into so-called 'status offences' (where their behaviour is only an offence because of their age status) such as truancy and sexual activity.

Becker notes that social control agencies themselves, may also campaign for a change in the law to increase their own. power. For example, the US Federal Bureau of Narcotics successfully campaigned for the passing of the Marijuana. Tax Act in 1937 to outlaw marijuana use. Supposedly, this was on the grounds of its ill effects on young people, but Becker argues it was really to extend the Bureau's sphere of influence. Thus it is not the inherent harmfulness of a particular behaviour that leads to new laws being created, but rather the efforts of powerful individuals and groups to redefine that behaviour as unacceptable.

Who gets labelled?

Not everyone who commits an offence is punished for it. Whether a person is arrested, charged and convicted depends on factors such as:

• Their interactions with agencies of social control. • Their appearance, background and personal biography

• The situation and circumstances of the offence.

This leads labelling theorists to look at how the laws are applied and enforced. Their studies show that agencies of social control are more likely to label certain groups of people as deviant or criminal.

For example, Piliavin and Briar (1964) found that police decisions to arrest a youth were mainly based on physical cues (such as manner and dress), from which they made Judgments about the youth's character Officers' decisions were also influenced by the suspect's gender, class and ethnicity, as well as by time and place, For example, those stopped late at night in high come areas ran a greater risk of. arrest. Similarly, a study of anti-social behaviour orders found they were disproportionately used against ethnic minorities

Cicourel: the negotiation of justice

Officers' decisions to arrest are influenced by their stereotypes about offenders, For example, Aaron Cicourel (1968) found. that officers typifications-their commonsense theories or stereotypes of what the typical delinquent is like-led. them to concentrate on certain 'types'. This resulted in law. enforcement showing a class bias, in those working-class areas. and people fitted the police typifications most closely, In turn, this led police to patrol working-class areas more intensively. resulting in more arrests and confirming their stereotypes.

Cicourel also found that other agents of social control within the criminal justice system reinforced this bias. For example, probation officers held the common sense theory that juvenile delinquency was caused by broken homes, poverty and lax parenting. They tended to see youths from such backgrounds as likely to offend in future and were less. likely to support non-custodial sentences for them.

In Cicourel's view, justice is not fixed but negotiable. For example, when a young middle-class male was arrested, he was less likely to be charged. This was partly because his background did not fit the idea of the police's typical delinquent, and partly because his parents were more. likely to be able to negotiate successfully on his behalf. convincing the control agencies that he was sorry that they would monitor him and ensure he stayed out of trouble in future As a result, typically, he was 'counselled, warned and released rather than prosecuted.

Topic versus resource

Cicourel's study has implications for the use we make of official crime statistics recorded by the police. He argues that these statistics do not give us a valid picture of the patterns of crime and cannot be used as a resource-that is, as facts about come

Instead, we should treat them as a topic for sociologists to investigate. That is, we must not take crime statistics at face value, instead, we should investigate the processes that created them. This will shed light on the activities of the control agencies and how they process and label certain types of people as criminal

The social construction of crime statistics

Interactionists see the official crime statistics as socially constructed. At each stage of the criminal justice system, agents of social control (such as police officers or prosecutors) make decisions about whether or not to proceed to the next stage. The outcome depends on the label they attach to individual suspects or defendants in the course of their interactions. This label is likely to be affected by the typifications or stereotypes they hold about them.

As a result, the statistics produced by the criminal justice system only tell us about the activities of the police and prosecutors, rather than about the amount of crime out there in society or who commits it. The statistics are really Just counts of the decisions made by control agents at the different decision gates' or stages in the justice system. As Figure 2.1 shows, at each 'gate', a decision is made, steadily whittling down the number of people in the system.

The dark figure of crime The difference between the official statistics and the 'real' rate of crime is sometimes called the dark figure, because we do not know for certain how much crime goes undetected, unreported and unrecorded.

Alternative statistics Some sociologists use victim surveys (where people are asked what crimes they have been victims of) or self-report studies (where they are asked what crimes they have committed) to gain a more accurate view of the amount of crime. These can add to our picture of crime, but they have several limitations. For example, people may forget, conceal or exaggerate when asked if they have committed a crime or been the victim of one. In addition, such surveys usually only include a selection of (generally less serious) offences.

The effects of labelling

Labelling theorists are interested in the effects of labelling upon those who are labelled. They claim that, by labelling certain people as criminal or deviant, society actually encourages them to become more so.

Primary and secondary deviance

Edwin Lemert (1951) distinguishes between primary and secondary deviance. Primary deviance refers to deviant acts that have not been publicly labelled. Lemert argues that it is pointless to seek the causes of primary deviance, since it is so widespread that it is unlikely to have a single cause, and in any case it is often trivial, e.g, fare dodging, and mostly goes uncaught

These acts are not part of an organised deviant way of life, so offenders can easily rationalise them away, for example as a moment of madness. They have little significance for the individual's status or self-concept. In short, primary deviants don't generally see themselves as deviant.

Master status However, some deviance is labelled. Secondary deviance is the result of societal reaction - that is, of labelling. Being caught and publicly labelled as a criminal can involve being stigmatised, shamed, humiliated, shunned or excluded from normal society. Once an individual is labelled, others may come to see them only in terms of the label. This becomes their master status or controlling identity, overriding all others. In the eyes of the world, they are no longer a colleague, parent or neighbour; they are now a thief, junkie or paedophile - in short, an outsider.

This can provoke a crisis for the individual's self-concept or sense of identity. One way to resolve this crisis is for the Individual to accept the deviant label and see themselves as the world sees them. In turn, this may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which the individual acts out or lives up to their deviant label, thereby becoming what the label says they are. Lemert refers to the further deviance that results from acting out the label as secondary deviance.

Deviant career Secondary deviance is likely to provoke further hostile reactions from society and reinforce the deviant's "outsider' status. Again, this in turn may lead to more deviance and a deviant career. For example, ex- convicts find it hard to go straight because no one will employ them, so they seek out other outsiders for support. This may involve joining a deviant subculture that offers deviant career opportunities and role models, rewards deviant behaviour, and confirms their deviant identity.

Young uses the concepts of secondary deviance and deviant career in his study of hippy marijuana users in Notting Hill. Initially, drugs were peripheral to the hippies lifestyle - an example of primary deviance. However, persecution and labelling by the control culture (the police) led the hippies increasingly to see themselves as outsiders. They retreated into closed groups where they began to develop a deviant subculture, wearing longer hair and more 'way out' clothes. Drug use became a central activity, attracting further attention from the police and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The work of Lemert and Young illustrates the idea that it is not the act itself, but the hostile societal reaction to it, that creates serious deviance. Ironically, therefore, the social control processes that are meant to produce law-abiding behaviour may in fact produce the very opposite.

However, although a deviant career is a common outcome of labelling, labelling theorists are quick to point out that it is not inevitable. As Downes and Rock (2003) note, we cannot predict whether someone who has been labelled will follow a deviant career, because they are always free to choose not to deviate further.

Deviance amplification spiral

The deviance amplification spiral is a term labelling theorists use to describe a process in which the attempt to control deviance leads to an increase in the level of deviance. This leads to greater attempts to control it and, in turn, this produces yet higher levels of deviance. More and more control produces more and more deviance, in an escalating spiral, as in the case of the hippies described by Young.

Labelling theorists have applied the concept of the deviance amplification spiral to various forms of group behaviour. An example of this is Stanley Cohen's (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics, a study of the societal reaction to the 'mods and rockers' disturbances involving groups of youths at English seaside resorts.

Press exaggeration and distorted reporting of the events began a moral panic, with growing public concern and with moral entrepreneurs calling for a 'crackdown. The police responded by arresting more youths, while the courts imposed harsher penalties. This seemed to confirm the truth of the original media reaction and provoked more public concern, in an upward spiral of deviance amplification. At the same time, the demonising of the mods and rockers as 'folk devils' caused their further marginalisation as 'outsiders', resulting in more deviant behaviour on their part (See Topic 7 for more about the media's role in moral panics.)

We can see the deviance amplification spiral as similar to Lemert's idea of secondary deviance. In both cases, the societal reaction to an initial deviant act leads not to successful control of the deviance, but to further deviance, which in turn leads to a greater reaction and so on. It also illustrates an important difference between labelling theory and functionalist theories of deviance. As Lemert (1967) puts it, these theories:

'rest heavily on the idea that deviance leads to social control. I have come to believe the reverse idea, i.e. social control leads to deviance."

Folk devils vs. the dark figure Folk devils are in a sense the opposites of the dark figure of crime. While the dark figure is about unlabelled, unrecorded crime that is ignored by the public and the police, folk devils and their actions are 'over- labelled' and over-exposed to public view and the attention of the authorities. In terms of law enforcement and the justice system, the pursuit of folk devils draws resources away from detecting and punishing the crimes that make up the dark figure, such as the crimes of the powerful.

Labelling and criminal justice policy

Studies have shown how increases in the attempt to control and punish young offenders can have the opposite effect. For example, in the USA, Triplett (2000) notes an increasing tendency to see young offenders as evil and to be less tolerant of minor deviance. The criminal justice system has re-labelled status offences such as truancy as more serious offences, resulting in much harsher sentences. As predicted by Lemert's theory of secondary deviance, this has resulted in an increase rather than a decrease in offending. De Haan (2000) notes a similar outcome in Holland as a result of the increasing stigmatisation of young offenders.

These findings indicate that labelling theory has important policy implications. They add weight to the argument that negative labelling pushes offenders towards a deviant career. Therefore logically, to reduce deviance, we should make and enforce fewer rules for people to break.

For example, by decriminalising soft drugs, we might reduce the number of people with criminal convictions and hence the risk of secondary deviance. Similarly, labelling theory implies that we should avoid publicly 'naming and shaming' offenders, since this is likely to create a perception of them as evil outsiders and, by excluding them from mainstream society, push them into further deviance.

Reintegrative shaming

Most labelling theorists see labelling as having negative effects. However, John Braithwaite (1989) identifies a more positive role for the labelling process. He distinguishes between two types of shaming (negative labelling):

• Disintegrative shaming, where not only the crime, but also the criminal, is labelled as bad and the offender is excluded from society.

• Reintegrative shaming, by contrast, labels the act but not the actor - as if to say, 'they have done a bad thing', rather than 'they are a bad person.'

The policy of reintegrative shaming avoids stigmatising the offender as evil while at the same time making them aware of the negative impact of their actions upon others, and then encourages others to forgive them. This makes it easier for both offender and community to separate the offender from the offence and re-admit the wrongdoer back into mainstream society. At the same time, this avoids pushing them into secondary deviance. Braithwaite argues that crime rates tend to be lower in societies where reintegrative rather than disintegrative shaming is the dominant way of dealing with offenders.

Mental illness and suicide: the sociology of deviance

Interactionists are interested not just in crime but in deviant behaviour more widely Here we focus on two Important areas regarded by some sociologists as deviant mental illness and suicide

Suicide

Socide has been an important topic in the development of sociology Durkheim (1897) studied it with the aim of showing that sociology is a science. Using official statistics, he claimed to have discovered the causes of suicide in how effectively society integrated individuals and regulated their behaviour

However, interactionists reject Durkheim's positivist approach and his reliance on official statistics. They argue that to understand suicide, we must study its meanings for those who choose to kill themselves.

Douglas: the meaning of suicide

Jack Douglas (1967) takes an interactionist approach to suicide. He is critical of the use of official suicide statistics for the same reasons as interactionists distrust official crime statistics. Both are socially constructed and they tell us about the activities of the people who construct them, such as police (in the case of crime) and coroners (in the case of suicide), rather than the real rate of crime or suicide in society

For example, whether a death comes to be officially labelled as suicide rather than, say, an accident or homicide, depends on the interactions and negotiations between social actors such as the coroner, relatives, friends, doctors and so on

For instance, relatives may feel guilty about failing to prevent the death and press for a verdict of misadventure rather than suicide. Similarly, a coroner with strong religious beliefs that suicide is a sin may be reluctant to bring in a suicide verdict

The statistics therefore tell us nothing about the meanings behind an individual's decision to commit suicide. If we want to understand their meanings, Douglas argues, we must use qualitative methods instead, such as the analysis of suicide notes, or unstructured interviews with the deceased's friends and relatives, or with people who have Survived a suicide attempt. This would allow us to 'get behind the labels coroners attach to deaths and discover their true meaning.

Atkinson: coroners' commonsense knowledge

Max Atkinson (1978) agrees that official statistics are merely a record of the labels coroners attach to deaths. He argues that it is impossible to know for sure what meanings the dead gave to their deaths.

Atkinson therefore focuses instead on the taken-for-granted assumptions that coroners make when reaching their verdicts. He found that their ideas about a 'typical suicide' were important; certain modes of death (e.g. hanging), location and circumstances of the death, and life history (e.g. a recent bereavement) were seen as typical of suicides. One coroner said that if the deceased had taken more than ten sleeping pills, 'I can be almost sure it was a suicide'.

However, Atkinson's approach can be used against him. If he is correct that all we can do is have interpretations of the social world, rather than real facts about it (such as how many deaths are really suicides), then his account is no more than an interpretation and there is no good reason to accept it.

Mental illness

As with crime and suicide, interactionists reject official statistics on mental illness because they regard these as social constructs. That is, they are simply a record of the activities of those such as psychiatrists with the power to attach labels such as 'schizophrenic' or 'paranoid' to others. Crime, suicide and mental illness statistics are artefacts (things made by human beings), not objective social facts.

Paranoia as a self-fulfilling prophecy

As with crime, interactionists are interested in how a person comes to be labelled as mentally ill, and in the effects of this labelling. An example of this is Lemert's (1962) study of paranoia. Lemert notes that some individuals don't fit easily into groups. As a result of this primary deviance, others label the person as odd and begin to exclude them.

The individual's response to this is the beginning of their secondary deviance, and it gives family, friends, colleagues etc - the 'social audience' - further reason to exclude them. The audience may begin discussing the best way of dealing with this difficult person. This may have the effect of confirming the individual's suspicions that people are conspiring against him or her. In turn, this reaction by the individual confirms the audience's fears for his or her mental health, and this may lead to a psychiatric intervention, resulting in the individual being officially labelled as suffering from paranoia and perhaps placed in hospital against their will

As a result, the label 'merital patient' becomes their master status. Henceforth, everything they say or do will be interpreted in this light

An example of this comes from Rosenhan's (1973) pseudopatient' experiment, in which researchers had themselves admitted to a number of hospitals claiming to have been hearing voices. They were diagnosed as schizophrenic and this became their master status Thus, despite acting normally, they were treated by staff as mentally ill. For example, the pseudo-patients kept notes of their experiences, but staff interpreted this as a symptom of illness

Institutionalisation

Goffman's (1961) classic study Asylums shows some of the possible effects of being admitted to a 'total institution such as a psychiatric hospital.

On admission, the inmate undergoes a 'mortification of the self in which their old identity is symbolically 'killed off and replaced by a new one: 'Inmate'. This is achieved by various 'degradation rituals, such as confiscation of personal effects, Goffman notes the similarities with other total institutions such as prisons, armies, monasteries and boarding schools

Goffman also shows that while some inmates become institutionalised, internalising their new identity and unable to re-adjust to the outside world, others adopt various forms of resistance or accommodation to their new situation

An example of this comes from Braginski et al's (1969) study of long-term psychiatric patients. They found that inmates manipulated their symptoms so as to appear 'not well enough to be discharged but 'not sick enough' to be confined to the ward. As a result, they were able to achieve their aim of free movement around the hospital

Evaluation of labelling theory

Labelling theory shows that the law is not a fixed set of rules to be taken for granted, but something whose construction we need to explain. It shows that the law is often enforced in discriminatory ways, and that crime statistics are more a record of the activities of control agents than of criminals. It also shows that society's attempts to control deviance can backfire and create more deviance, not less.

However, it is criticised on several grounds:

• It tends to be deterministic, implying that once someone is labelled, a deviant career is inevitable.

• Its emphasis on the negative effects of labelling gives the offender a kind of victim status. Realist sociologists argue that this ignores the real victims of crime.

• It tends to focus on less serious crimes such as drug-taking

• By assuming that offenders are passive victims of labelling, it ignores the fact that individuals may actively choose deviance.

• It fails to explain why people commit primary deviance in the first place, before they are labelled.

• It implies that without labelling, deviance would not exist. This leads to the strange conclusion that someone who commits a crime but is not labelled has not deviated. It also implies that deviants are unaware that they are deviant until labelled. Yet most are well aware that they are going against social norms.

• It recognises the role of power in creating deviance, but it fails to analyse the source of this power. As a result, it focuses on 'middle range officials' such as policemen who apply the labels, rather than on the capitalist class who (in the view of Marxists) make the rules in the first place. It also fails to explain the origin of the labels, or why they are applied to certain groups, such as the working class.

Topic summary

For labelling theory, an act only becomes deviant when labelled as such, through societal reaction. Not every offender is labelled, and labelling theory is interested in how the laws are selectively enforced against some groups This means official statistics are invalid: they only tell us about the types of people the control agencies have labelled, not the real patterns of crime.

Labelling may cause the label to become the individual's master status. A deviance amplification spiral may result in which increased control leads to increased deviance. Interactionists have applied labelling theory to the study of suicide and mental illness

Labelling theory has suggested implications for criminal justice policies we should avoid labelling individuals. Labelling theory is criticised for determinism and failing to explain primary deviance and the origin of labels