Labeling Theory Development

Development of Labeling Theory

• Franklin Tannenbaum's work contributed to labeling theory
• Primary and secondary deviance are factors
• Self-fulfilling prophecy plays a role
• Lemert and Becker have provided critiques of labeling theory

Work of Franklin Tannenbaum

• Franklin Tannenbaum's work was a building block for the labeling perspective
• Police contact may turn common acts of juvenile delinquency into a "dramatization of evil"
• Social reaction to deviant behavior can lead to further deviance

Primary and Secondary Deviance

• Edwin Lemert made the distinction between the concepts in 1951

Primary Deviance

• Individuals violate norms without viewing themselves as being involved in a deviant social role
• Consists of incidental deviant acts
• An individual breaks or violates norms but not chronically performing these acts
• Can trigger the labeling process

Secondary Deviance

• A person begins to engage in deviant behavior as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the problems created by reactions
• Broken rules can bring out a reaction
• In defense to the reaction, the individual may commit subsequent deviant acts and begin a more serious deviant career

How the Labeling Process Works

• Reciprocal or circular relationships occur
• Interactionist theory is a factor
• Secondary deviance can occur in three ways
• A deviant master status can be reached

Reciprocal or Circular Relationships

• Lines between deviance, reaction, secondary deviance, and role engulfment are is not so direct
• There are reciprocal or circular relationships

Interactionist Theory

• There are three ways to secondary deviance
• By altering an individual's self-concept
• By limiting conforming opportunities
• By encouraging involvement in a deviant subculture

Deviant Master Status

• Being labeled deviant may lead to a deviant master status
• A status that it proves to be more important than most others
• Brings out strong reactions
• Shapes the perception and behavior of those around you
• Being labeled a sex offender becomes the main identity people see, and ignores other roles (parent or friend)

Labeling and Mental Illness

• Scheff's residual rule-breaking theory plays a role
• Rosenhan conducted a study of "pseudopatients."

Scheff's Residual Rule Breaking Theory

• Mental illness often starts with "residual rule breaking," a form of primary deviance

• Scheff proposed the idea in 1966

• Residual rule breaking is deviance

• No clear category, but behavior draws attention and makes the societal audience uncomfortable

• Comes from diverse sources, such as biological, psychological, or situational conditions

• Most is denied and considered insignificant

• Sometimes it can activate the labeling process

• Symptoms and stereotypes of mental illness are accidentally asserts in ordinary social interactions

• Friends and family may reinforce a mentally ill or deviant label by rewarding individuals for conforming to expectations

• Punishing or blocking their efforts to return to normal, conventional behaviors is a factor

• It can be the starting point for the labeling process

Rosenhan's Study of "Pseudopatients"

• A study of labeling and mental illness was conducted by David Rosenhan
• Eight sane citizens were to act as "pseudopatients.”
• The pseudopatients were institutionalized in 12 American hospitals
• Once hospitalized, the pseudopatients immediately stopped simulating symptoms and began acting “normal” again
• They had to convince the hospital staff that they were ready to return to the community
• At the time of discharge, all of them had a diagnosis of schizophrenia “in remission."
• The study illustrated how mental health diagnoses and labels can stick and become difficult to shake off

Labeling and Delinquency

• Research offered by William Chambliss

Research by William Chambliss

• He studied two groups of high school boys - the working-class and the upper-middle-class
• Despite both groups engaging in similar delinquent behaviors, their treatment by the community differed significantly
• The upper-middle-class were seen as good boys, excused for their behavior, and went on to lead successful lives
• The working-class were viewed as troublemakers and faced constant trouble with authorities
• Their adult outcomes were more varied, some became teachers, while others ended up in prison
• Social power and labeling influence life outcomes

Impact of Labeling Theory

• Radical nonintervention
• Restorative justice

Radical Nonintervention

• Edwin Schur suggested a better way for the juvenile justice system
• Not to institutionalize young offenders in the first place
• In dealing with delinquent youth, choose to “leave the kids alone wherever possible."
• Schur advocated a "hands-off" approach to juvenile misbehavior
• Would purposely take moral judgment away from juvenile courts.”

Restorative Justice

• The state functions as an arbiter or partner
• Works with the victim and the offender to reduce the harm associated with the criminal act

Application of Labeling Theory

• Braithwaite explored Crime, Shame and Reintegration in 1989
• Reintegrative shaming vs stigmatization are factors
• Offers an alternative to punitive criminal justice
• The case of specialized mental health courts

Braithwaite on Crime, Shame and Reintegration

• Societies can reduce crime by effectively using shame to discourage crime
• Offenders' reintegration is supported

Reintegrative Shaming vs. Stigmatization

• With reintegrative shaming, the offender can be viewed as a good person who has done a bad deed
• Labeling, when done respectfully and focused on the act rather than the individual, may actually reduce crime
• "Stigmatization is unforgiving" as it labels the offender a bad person

Specialized Mental Health Courts

• Reintegrative shaming is an example

• Dollar and Ray concluded that the courts followed four principles of reintegrative shaming

• Respectful disapproval of the criminal behavior

• Disapproval of the criminal behavior rather than the individual

• Rejecting deviance as a master status

• Using ceremonial decertifications of deviance

• The judge plays a key role in reintegrative shaming, welcoming, and valuing the participants

Matsueda and Delinquency

• Matsueda focused on how parental labeling impacts adolescent delinquency in 1992

• Examined "Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency”

• Interactionist theory of the self and delinquency are key factors

• Creation of delinquent "self" is a result

• Parental appraisals (how parents view their child) influence adolescents' self-perception (reflected appraisals)

• Can lead to a delinquent "self" and further deviant behavior

• Adolescents who perceive their parents see them as troublemakers are more likely to view themselves this way engage in delinquency

• Youths' reflected appraisals of themselves are strongly influenced by their parents' appraisals of them

• Labeling and reflected appraisals create delinquent "self"

• The delinquent can lead the adolescent further into deviant behavior

Rosenfield on Labeling of Mental Illness

• A prominent study on labeling and mental illness centered on the concept and meaning of stigma in 1997
• Receipt of treatment and services were compared versus the perception of stigma on the quality of life for people with chronic mental illness
• Stigma and the perception of it had a significant negative relationship with patients' quality of life
• Services have a strong positive association with quality of life

Davies and Tanner On Effects of Labeling on Employment

• Long-term impacts on opportunities and employment were examined

• Lee and Bubolz noted how gang members stand out

• Examined the lasting stigma faced by former gang members after leaving their gangs

• Most former gang members experienced ongoing stigma, facing suspicion from police and rejection by employers due to tattoos

• The stigma of gang involvement persists long after leaving the lifestyle

• Some individuals are unable to remove their names from gang databases, leading to lifetime consequences

• The long-term impact of formal labeling (school suspension, incarceration) on employment and income were reviewed from ages 15-23 to age 29

• Severe labeling negatively impacted occupational status and employment opportunities 14 years later

• Stronger effects were found for females than males

• Early encounters with authorities (teachers, police, courts) have significant, damaging effects on future work roles