Labeling Theory

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 a part of their identity. Labeling is often used against individuals who are racially, ethnically or socio-economically determined to be abnormal or aberrant, and thus has the effect of creating ostracized groups of entire classes of people. It is ultimately an unproductive concept both for society as well as victimizes the individuals who are labeled and creates rather than prevents the existence of a criminal underclass.
Symbolic Interactionalism
The concept of labeling theory first arose in the early 1960s, when Howard Becker published The Outsiders, a work which suggested that crime was not, in and of itself, a concept inherent to a particular act or concept, but rather was an idea symbolically invested with negative meanings. For example, when two low-income juveniles fight, this is viewed as evidence of their inherent delinquency, but in a wealthier area such an act is seen as simply “boys being boys” (“The Labeling Theory of Crime,” 2016). Similarly, today, the war on drugs is an example of class-directed warfare, given that low-income individuals who abuse drugs are seen as having a problem, while affluent individuals are viewed as having a mental disorder. The power to label results in profoundly different views of what are, effectively, the same act, and results in different labels being affixed to individuals. Labels are affixed based upon class status rather than the severity of the crime the individual commits.
Avoiding Labeling in Criminal Justice
Although the media is often accused of unfairly labeling certain groups as inherently criminal, the justice system itself engages in labeling. “It is sometimes claimed, but more often an underlying assumption…public labelling in response to proven criminal guilt – e.g. of criminal convictions – is permitted, at least in part, because people who commit crimes deserve to be labelled publicly as criminals” (Hadjimatheou, 2016, p.568). Public shame, whether formal (having to state that one has a criminal record on a job application) or informal is seen as part of the retributive process of punishment. The assumption, once again, is that crime is solely the fault of the individual and society is therefore justified in inflicting whatever punishment it deems fit upon that individual.
One way to potentially counterbalance the retributive use of labeling is to take a different view of the purpose of justice, acknowledging societal complicity in the perpetuation of crime. Marxists theories of criminology, much like labeling theorists, stress that crime is a social product. Marxists theorists are more inclined to see the classification of crime based in class-based standards and as a perpetuation of the socioeconomic status quo. But regardless, it is another way to view crime not as an individualized act of deviance but as a response to particular societal circumstances that are framed by forces outside the individual in a very particular way. Another way to view crime, and to punish or discourage crime, is the restorative model of justice, which suggests that individuals who have caused a break in the fabric of the community should make restorative amends (such as cleaning up graffiti, or engaging in community service), versus jail time (“What is Restorative Justice,” 2018). By encouraging the person who has been convicted of a criminal act to do something positive, this reduces the impact of the stigmatizing label.
Labeling theory has a number of challenges in being fully accepted as an accepted theory within the criminal justice system. First and foremost, while it seems to explain some times of crimes, particularly juvenile crimes, it cannot explain why certain crimes are considered uniformly abhorrent across the justice systems of the world and across many historical eras. It is persuasive in explaining the construction of certain types of crimes, such as status-based offenses, which are only crimes because they are committed by certain types of persons (i.e. young people). For example, juveniles can be labeled delinquents if they remain outside past curfew, consume any amount of alcohol, and do not go to school. This can result in their being labeled criminal and stigmatized.
Not only does the nature of a status-based offense suggest that society views certain types of actions by specific groups of people very differently; the variable nature with which such crimes are enforced within the justice system can create a greater tendency to label certain groups. According to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (2014), juveniles from historically discriminated-against minority groups are disproportionately more apt to be prosecuted for status-based offenses. The juvenile justice system often claims considerable discretion in terms of how it enforces the law, given that it is supposed to be rehabilitative in its intention but this can also give judges considerable leeway in terms of whether juveniles are given very little punishment at all or whether they are sent to detention centers.
But while labeling theory may explain why certain groups experience harsher sentences, it is clear that there are certain types of crimes which are cross-culturally considered to be abhorrent actions, such as murder or theft. When persons commit such crimes, more than social labeling would seem to be the root cause. On the other hand, it is sobering to reflect that many so-called white collar crimes even of adults are not punished very harshly, even though they may have profoundly negative effects, equal to or even beyond that of everyday street crimes. Labeling theory does not necessarily mean that society must abolish the distinction of lawful versus unlawful activity but it does demand greater mindfulness and consideration of how certain acts are labeled, and by extension, how certain persons are labeled who commit such actions.
Gangs and Cultural Deviancy
According to labeling theory, criminal gangs are a product of social labeling, as people who are labeled to be deviant often come together to find an alternative, viable social identity. Just as people who are deemed to be lawful within the context of law-abiding society form organizations to advance their own interests, such as professional or religious groups, similarly members of gangs come together to find a sense of companionship and to achieve self-interested objectives. This is yet another example of the danger of labeling certain persons as beyond the pale of ordinary society, given that there is an added incentive to become a member of a gang once conventional means of advancement are eliminated.
Labeling theorists would not necessarily agree that so-called lower class culture as a whole perpetuates crime. While it is true that members of disadvantaged groups may have less of an incentive in advancing mainstream societal goals because they have failed to benefit from them, they are also more likely to be the victims of crimes. In fact, it is so-called mainstream culture that produces the association with committing crime and poverty, and generates the necessary conditions to foster crime in such areas through labeling. Via policing, higher conviction rates, and framing behaviors as crimes rather than individual aberrations within lower-class communities, the association between the so-called lower classes and crime is created.
This association does generate the necessary fuel for the creation of subcultures which foster the perpetuation of crime. When individuals are denied legitimate channels to achieve socially validated aspirations such as wealth and status, combined with a human desire for association, groups of negatively labeled individuals can attempt to transform such labels into positive associations through participating in gangs. Within such subcultures, membership becomes a point of pride, including adhering to the particular code of ethics or honor within the subculture. This theory about the origin of gangs is a direct challenge to the idea that individuals merely come together to perpetuate crimes for personal financial gain and satisfaction. The creation of a subculture implies benefits beyond the purely material and transactional. Labeling theory is also about the psychological stigma that a label can generate, and the individual’s attempt to turn that into a positive.
In recent years, the number of youths joining gangs in the inner city has doubled, while the number of gang leaders serving time in prison and being released after good conduct has increased. The fact that crime rate for gang violence has increased 20% as a result of these trends should not be surprising, according to labeling theory, given that individuals who have now been given the label of deviant must bear the stigma. Even if individuals convicted of gang activity are serving less time in prison, within society persons convicted of a crime are often limited in the types of jobs they can have and are viewed in a less favorable light than persons deemed to be law-abiding citizens. The internalization of the label remains long after someone has been released from prison. However, although labeling theory may offer a persuasive case for why gangs and the crimes they generate are perpetuated, ultimately this can be difficult to prove. Labeling theory is just that—a theory. Like all theories of criminal behavior, it cannot be conclusively demonstrated to be true or false using an experiment.
References
Disproportionate minority contact and juvenile justice. (2014). Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Retrieved from: https://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/publications/disproportionate- minority-contact-and-status-offenses/
Hadjimatheou, K. (2016). Criminal labelling, publicity, and punishment. Law and Philosophy,
35: 567–593.
The labeling theory of crime. (2016). Revise Sociology. Retrieved from:
https://revisesociology.com/2016/08/20/labelling-theory-crime-deviance/
What is restorative justice? (2018). The Center for Restorative Justice. Retrieved from:
http://restorativejustice.org/#sthash.vipBPSuK.dpbs