Interactionist View of Crime and Deviance

Interactionism gained prominence in the 1970s as sociologists challenged functionalist explanations of society.
Interactionists moved away from the idea that criminals are inherently "mad or bad" or revolutionary heroes.
They emphasized that criminality is often circumstantial, meaning acts are not inherently criminal but become so based on context.

Interactionists contend that deviance is a social construct; it doesn't exist until an action is labeled as such.
Deviance arises from social context, requiring an act to be witnessed and labeled as a crime or deviance.

Social labels influence perceptions of individuals, particularly those seen as different or inferior (e.g., due to mental illness).
A stigma is a label applied to a person, leading non-stigmatized individuals to treat them as "inferior" or "other."
This distancing results in viewing the stigmatized as "not like me," potentially leading to hostility and hate crimes.
Stigmatized individuals develop coping strategies to manage negative social reactions (e.g., using humor to preemptively address concerns about mental health).

Recognizes the impact of social dynamics and power relations in shaping criminal behavior.
Helps explain why some individuals or groups may resort to crime to achieve goals or maintain status within a social group.

May not accurately predict why some socially disadvantaged individuals do not engage in criminal behavior, while others with more advantages do.
Fails to account for all potential influences, such as individual personality, upbringing, and cultural values.

Primary Deviance: The initial action or experience of deviance (e.g., drug misuse).
Secondary Deviance: The deviant role an individual creates in response to being labeled as deviant.
Lemert's perspective sees criminal behavior as a symptom of deeper social and personal problems like poverty, discrimination, trauma, and mental health issues.

Skipping school.
Disobeying rules or authority.
Engaging in minor acts of mischief or vandalism.
These behaviors might be considered normal or expected in certain groups or contexts without significant negative consequences.

Robbery.
Assault.
Drug trafficking.
These are more serious deviations from social norms leading to negative consequences like incarceration or social ostracism.

Acknowledges the significance of social and personal factors in shaping criminal behavior.
Explains why individuals facing social and personal challenges may be more prone to criminal behavior.

May not accurately predict why some individuals with significant challenges do not engage in crime, while others with fewer challenges do.
Does not consider all potential influences on behavior, like personality, upbringing, and cultural values.

Howard Becker's study on marijuana smokers contributed to labelling theory.
People may commit acts that lead to them being defined as deviant or lawbreakers.
They acquire a social label as a lawbreaker (e.g., cannabis smoker).
The social label becomes a "master status," defining a person's primary characteristic.
If a person's master status is known, their actions are interpreted through the lens of that status.
Becker identified a process where people become entrenched in a deviant career, accepting a negative social status.

Recognizes the role of social and cultural definitions and labeling in shaping criminal behavior.
Explains why some individuals are more likely to engage in crime due to social labels and stereotypes.
Provides a framework to understand the dynamic process of labeling and stigmatization.
The labeling process involves:
- The initial deviant act.
- The reaction of others.
- The individual's response to the reaction.
- The consequences of that response.
- This process influences behavior and identity over time.

May oversimplify the complex factors influencing criminal behavior.
May downplay individual agency and personal choice.
May not accurately predict why some individuals with labels do not engage in crime, while others with minimal labels do.
Theory does not account for potential influences on behavior such as personality, upbringing and cultural values.

Building on Lemert's ideas, Leslie Wilkins (1964) identified the media's large impact on creating crime.
This idea was further developed by Stanley Cohen in his study of Folk Devils and Moral Panics.

Interactionists recognize the interactive process of becoming criminal; it's not just about breaking a law.
A whole range of social events contribute to someone being labeled a criminal.
Interactionists reject quantitative research methods.
They argue that official statistics are socially constructed and reflect biases of those collecting the data.
Offers insight into the social construction of data.

New Left realists (Lea and Young, 1986) argue that interactionists overlook the disproportionate involvement of certain social groups (e.g., young, working class) in crime.
Interactionism fails to explain the origins of the initial criminal act; it doesn't explain the active choice to break the law before labeling.
While labeled youth may commit further crimes, it's not definitive proof that the label is the cause.
Hirschi (1975) argued that factors like age may play a part in delinquency.

Interactionism doesn't fully explain why some individuals are more likely to be labeled than others.
Neo-Marxists and New Left realists address this aspect.
Marxists criticize interactionism for overlooking the significance of social structure in the origins of crime.
It does not consider power dynamics in who has the power to label people as deviant.