Labeling Theory in Criminology

Labeling Theory

• Labels can affect a person's life, giving or taking away opportunities as well as affecting how they are treated by parents, teachers, coworkers, and friends.

Development of Labeling Theory

• Franklin Tannenbaum contributed to the earliest building blocks of this theory along with primary and secondary deviance.
• The self-fulfilling prophecy and critique by Lemert and Becker also had an impact on the development of this theory.

Work of Franklin Tannenbaum

• Franklin Tannenbaum, in 1938, suggested police contact may turn common juvenile delinquency into a "dramatization of evil".
• Social reaction to the deviant behavior can lead to further deviance.

Primary and Secondary Deviance

• Edwin Lemert made the distinction between primary and secondary deviance in 1951.

Primary Deviance

• Individuals violate norms without viewing themselves as being involved in a deviant social role.
• Consists of incidental deviant acts that an individual breaks or violates norms but does not do so chronically, and can trigger the labeling process.

Secondary Deviance

• This occurs when a person begins to engage in deviant behavior as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the problems created by reactions to them.
• Broken rules can cause reaction, and to defend against the reaction, the individual may commit subsequent deviant acts and begin a more serious deviant career.

How the Labeling Process Works

• Can involve reciprocal or circular relationships in interactionist theory.
• Can occur in three ways to secondary deviance, resulting in a deviant master status.
• Deviance leads to Reaction which results in Role Engulfment that results in Secondary Deviance

Reciprocal or Circular Relationships

• The lines aren't always direct, instead, can be reciprocal or circular, with lines going back and forth between deviance, reaction, secondary deviance, and role engulfment.

Interactionist Theory

• Does not suggest that once on the path to deviance, one must continue in that direction
• There are three ways to secondary deviance: altering an individual's self-concept, limiting conforming opportunities, and encouraging involvement in a deviant subculture.

A Deviant Master Status

• Being labeled deviant may lead to a deviant master status, which is a status that is more important than most others.
• Can bring out strong reactions and shapes the perception and behavior of those around the one labeled.
• Being labeled a sex offender becomes the main identity people see, ignoring other roles like parent or friend.

Labeling and Mental Illness

• Involves Scheff's residual rule-breaking theory and the Rosenhan's study of "pseudopatients.”

Scheff's Residual Rule Breaking Theory

• Scheff proposed in 1966, that mental illness often starts with "residual rule breaking," a form of primary deviance.
• In this theory, residual rule breaking may be behavior that draws attention and makes the societal audience uncomfortable
• This often comes from biological, psychological, or situational conditions, but may be denied and considered insignificant
• Symptoms and stereotypes of mental illness are at times asserted in ordinary social interactions which can activate the labeling process.
• Friends and family may reinforce a mentally ill or deviant label by rewarding individuals for conforming to expectations, while punishing or blocking their efforts to return to normal behaviors.
• Residual rule breaking can be the starting point for the labeling process.

Rosenhan's Study of "Pseudopatients"

• David Rosenhan conducted a study of labeling and mental illness by recruiting eight sane citizens to act as "pseudopatients.”
• The pseudopatients were institutionalized in 12 American hospitals, but once hospitalized, they immediately stopped simulating symptoms and began acting “normal” again.
• Despite this, they had to convince the hospital staff that they were ready to return to the community, and at the final time of discharge, all of them had a diagnosis of schizophrenia “in remission."
• The study demonstrated how mental health diagnoses and labels, once applied, can stick and become difficult to shake off, even when the person no longer exhibits those symptoms.

Labeling and Delinquency

• Research in this area was offered by studies done by William Chambliss.

Research Offered by William Chambliss

• In 1973, William Chambliss studied two different 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.
• Upper-middle-class boys were seen as good boys, excused for their behavior, and led successful lives.
• Working-class boys were viewed as troublemakers and faced constant trouble with authorities, eventually became either teachers, or ended up in prison for serious crimes.
• This study highlights how social power and labeling influences life outcomes.

Impact of Labeling Theory

• Radical nonintervention and restorative justice.

Radical Nonintervention

• In 1973, Edwin Schur suggested that a better way for the juvenile justice system to operate was to not institutionalize young offenders in the first place.
• When dealing with delinquent youth, there should be a "hands-off" approach to juvenile misbehavior that purposely takes moral judgment away from juvenile courts.
• Said to choose to "leave the kids alone wherever possible."

Restorative Justice

• A system of restorative justice functions as it involves the state as an arbiter or partner who works with the victim and the offender to reduce the harm associated with the criminal act.

Application of Labeling Theory

• In 1989, Braithwaite studied reintegrative shaming vs. stigmatization, also the potential with alternatives to punitive criminal justice, as seen in mental health courts.

Braithwaite (1989), Crime, Shame and Reintegration

• John Braithwaite argues that societies can reduce crime by effectively with the use of shame to discourage crime while supporting offenders' reintegration.

Reintegrative shaming vs. stigmatization

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

The case of specialized mental health courts:

• An example of reintegrative shaming, where Dollar and Ray concluded that court sessions followed four principles:
• Respectful disapproval of the criminal behavior, disapproval of the criminal behavior rather than the individual, rejecting deviance as a master status, and using ceremonial decertifications of deviance.
• In this respect, judges play a key role by welcoming and valuing the participants in reintegrative shaming.

Matsueda (1992), "Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency"

• Focuses on interactionist theory of the self and delinquency, and the creation of delinquent "self.”
• Matsueda in 1992, focuses on how parental labeling impacts adolescent delinquency
• Parental appraisals influence adolescents' self-perception, known as reflected appraisals, which may lead to a delinquent "self" and further deviant behavior
• Adolescents who perceive their parents seeing them as troublemakers are more likely to self-perception this way and engage in delinquency.
• Youths' reflected appraisals of themselves are strongly influenced by their parents' appraisals of them along with a delinquent "self" that may lead the adolescent further into deviant behavior.

Rosenfield (1997), "Labeling Mental Illness"

• A prominent study on labeling and mental illness centered on the concept and meaning of stigma.
• The reception of treatment and services versus the perception of stigma impacts people with chronic mental illness.
• Stigma and the perception of it are negatively related to patients' quality of life, but on the other hand, health services have a strong positive association with quality of life.

Davies and Tanner (2003), "The Long Arm of the Law: Effects of Labeling on Employment"

• Examines the long-term impacts on employment and opportunities.
• Lee and Bubolz study this as gang members often stand out and are stigmatized.
• Long-term formal labeling like suspension or incarcaration) impacts employment and income from ages 15-23 to age 29.
• Severe labeling negatively impacts occupational status and employment opportunities 14 years later, with stronger effects for females than males.
• Early encounters with authorities (teachers, police, courts) also have significant, damaging effects on future work roles supporting labeling theory.
• Former gang members experience ongoing stigma, facing suspicion from police and rejection by employers due to tattoos.
• The stigma of gang involvement persists long after leaving the lifestyle, with some individuals unable to remove their names from gang databases, leading to lifetime consequences.