Labeling Theory of Deviance

Labeling Theory of Deviance

Labeling theory integrate well into radical criminology as it perceives criminal behavior to be defined by society. The powerful in the society like the judges, parents, police, to mention but a few tend to label the less powerful. Ones conduct is never classified as right or wrong but as a deviant behavior. It is not only criminal behaviors that are treated as deviant. The society's alcoholics and the mentally hill are also perceived to be showcasing deviant behaviors. Labeling leads to creation of stigma and modification of self-image (Wright, Gronfein, & Owens, 2000). The element of stigma comes about when the public takes to condemning and exclusion of a criminal. The criminal is avoided and treated with suspicion. He is barred from certain types of employments (Macionis & Gerber, 2011). Their own families may even reject them. The police also give them undue attention. The element of modification of self-image sets in as a result of the stigma that a given criminal is subjected to. There is a self-fulfilling prophecy where an individual becomes the person being described by the label. The label becomes a role and the individual changes that life to suit that role. As more crimes are committed an individual forms an identity that of criminal and its associated values, attitudes, and beliefs a process that is called deviance amplification. Intervention like punishment meted out on these behaviors reinforces an individual's perception of being a criminal (Macionis & Gerber, 2011). According to labeling theory of deviance, crime is not a violation of a penal code but an act that outrages a society. The society labels to control behaviors. The self is constructed and reconstructed through the interactions an individual has with the community. People obtain labels from how others view their interactions. Deviance is perceived to be a failure to conform to the rules observed by members of the society. A person is labeled to have offended against a society's social or moral norms of behavior. Society's cardinal role in this respect is to designate breaches or rules as deviant. The person considered to have breached the norms is treated differently depending on the seriousness of the breach. The more differential the treatment, the more an individual self-image is affected. The society provides very special roles for deviant behaviors. And once more these are called deviant and stigmatic roles (Macionis & Gerber, 2011). To build more on what had been ventilated earlier, social roles are expectations people have about behavior. For a society or a group to function there has to be social roles which are necessary for organization. Deviant behaviors include criminal and non-criminal activities. Deviant roles affect how an individual perceives those who are assigned the roles. It also affects how deviant actors perceive themselves and their relationship to the society. Attaching labels to deviant roles lead to some sort of social stigma (Macionis & Gerber, 2011). A labeled person is considered to be different from others. Stigmatic roles are used to control and limit deviant behaviors. Members of the society who exhibit deviant behaviors are considered to be social deviants. One is to be stigmatized upon breaching given rules depending on the significance of the moral or the tenet it represents. As a matter of fact, adultery may be considered a breach of an informal rule or it may as well be criminalized, depending on the status of the parties' marriage, morality, and the religion they subscribe to (Macionis & Gerber, 2011). Some countries have not criminalized adultery. However, there is likelihood that the person caught in the act may be labeled an adulterer. This may have less severe consequences. However, in Islamic countries, committing adultery is considered a crime and any proof of extramarital activity may have severe consequences on the affected parties.

Labeling theory has not achieved its level of importance in comprehensive theory of crime and deviance because it offers narrow theoretical model to explain all of deviance. It also tends to be connected with conflict theory. Labeling theorists and advocates have also failed to pay attention to symbolic nature of labeling. Propositions of labeling theory have no intrinsically criminal acts (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Proponents of labeling theory of deviance also aver that laws are made for and enforced in favor of more powerful interests oblivious of the fact that nowhere in the symbolic interactionist literature or writing of delineators of labeling perspective does one find these propositions. At formative stages, labeling theory tended to criticize government institutions that were set up to control crime with a view that these institutions should were perpetuating the very problems they are supposed to eliminate (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). These were consistent with tile writings of conflict theorists. Merging of labeling theory with conflict theory has opened it to criticisms. It is perceived that labeling theory is more linked to structural, historical, or any other explanation of behavior. To understand crime and deviance it is imperative that one analyses the importance of symbolic interactionism. Linkage between labeling theory to other theoretical models can be brought into perspective by creating a distinction between primary and secondary deviance (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Secondary deviance is best explained by labeling. Some of people who tried to investigate the link that exist between labeling theory and other theoretical were very narrow in their scope of investigation with some of them taking labeling to be the primary explanation of secondary deviation. The concept of secondary deviation was nearly left out in this aspect (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Sonic labeling theorists were determined to portray labeling as the primary cause of crime and deviant behavior. To deeply understand the primary cause of crime and behavior it is imperative that single dimensional theoretical models are discarded and interdisciplinary and integrated theories adopted. The future of criminology rests on approach to theory building and value of labeling will only increase when individuals begin to understand other theoretical perspectives and complete tile decoupling of labeling and conflict theories.