Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Labeling Theory and Juvenile Crime
Do we perform to expectations? One study of gifted children suggested that this was the case: in an experiment, teachers were told that certain pupils in their classroom had tested as 'gifted.' Almost immediately, the teachers began to treat these children differently, and the children began to perform at a higher standard. However, the teachers had actually been intentionally misinformed -- the children had been selected at random. Similarly, in the famous 'brown eyes vs. blue eyes' experiment conducted by educator Jane Elliot, a class of children was divided into blue-eyed and brown-eyed children, and the brown-eyed children were treated as second-class citizens. The blue-eyed children's scholastic performance improved, simply because of the positive reinforcement they received for their behavior (A class divided, 2011, PBS).
The notion that 'labeling' certain individuals in a positive or negative fashion can be a self-fulfilling prophesy is borne out by experimental and anecdotal evidence and forms one of the most influential theories of criminology of the late 20th century, known as labeling theory. This theory suggests that when individuals are expected to be deviant, they perform to expectations. Deviancy may be associated with a variety of traits -- being young, being an African-American or Latino,...
This labeling creates a chain reaction -- when the 'deviant' is convicted of a crime, they are put in contact mainly with other 'deviant' individuals, and their identity as a criminal estranged from society is reinforced rather than circumvented.
An early advocate of labeling theory, Lemert (1967), suggested that if someone labeled 'deviant' embraces the label, rather than sees him or herself with an investment in socially acceptable roles; he or she will identify with the criminal subculture (Paternoster & Iovanni 1989: 359). Delinquency is frequently a group phenomenon, suggesting that groups can reinforce identity as 'deviant' by providing an alternative to mainstream society and culture. There is a reversal of norms -- for example, in a school setting where deviant behavior is the norm, studying and getting good grades might be interpreted as a betrayal.
Howard Becker is widely considered to be the predominant advocate of labeling theory. Becker's analysis was notable because his theory suggested that there was no inherent 'deviant' behavior -- rather it was simply how society conceptualized that behavior. During the 19th century, for example, cocaine and opium were acceptable drugs, and taken by respectable men and women. Today drug use is labeled deviant and criminal. The…
References
Becker, Howard. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. London: Macmillan.
A class divided. (2011). PBS. Retrieved September 24, 2011 at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/
Lemert, E.M. (1967). Human deviance, social problems and social control. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall).
Reducing racial disparity in the criminal justice system: A manual for practitioners and policymakers. (2008). The Sentencing Project. Retrieved September 24, 2011 at http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_reducingracialdisparity.pdf
Social Labeling Theory: Juvenile Delinquency Social labeling theory was originally developed by the theorist Howard Becker to explain why certain individuals believe that a path of crime will be more advantageous to them then following social norms. Becker suggested that criminals often internalize the label of deviancy at a young age, believing that since more conventional and positive labels cannot apply to them, celebrating deviancy is the only possible path to
Labeling Theory: Theories of Deviance In sociology and criminology, labeling theorists were among the first to suggest that crime was not produced by inherent defects within the individual’s biology or character, but rather was a social construction. Labeling theorists suggested that crime was the result of society’s need to label certain individuals as deviant. This labeling became a self-fulfilling prophesy, to the point that the labeled individuals made their deviant label
Labeling Theory Criminality is an unfortunate but inevitable component of human society. As much as people would like to believe that there is a way to create a type of community that has no crime, psychologists and other experts in the field of criminology have done research and created various hypotheses which show that criminality is actually an inevitability under any circumstances where large numbers of human beings interact and then
Labeling Theory Originating in sociology and criminology, labeling theory (also known as social reaction theory) was developed by sociologist Howard S. Becker (1997). Labeling theory suggests that deviance, rather than constituting an act, results from the societal tendency of majorities to negatively label those individuals perceived as deviant from norms. Essentially, labeling theory involves how the self-identity and behavior of individuals determines or influences the terms used to describe or classify
This in turn more often than not leads the stigmatized to acquire more and more deviant and possibly criminal identities (Lanier & Henry, 1998). There can, of course, be other antecedents prior to labeling that can enhance the process of delinquency in juveniles. Mental and/or psychological impairments must also be considered as a contributing factor. Certain of these attributes can also contribute to highly suggestible levels in regards to behavior
Labeling theory The labeling theory is one of the various social behavior theories that seek to explain the cause of deviant behaviors within the society. Here, the theorists tend to describe deviant behavior as behavior that which becomes deviant only when labeled so. This approach tends to explain why the labeling theorists are not much interested in what causes the primary deviation. They tend to shelve the question of what causes