Interactionist Explanations PDF

**Topic 5 -- Interactionist Explanations** ***Key questions: How is crime socially constructed? What is the labelling process? What is the difference between primary and secondary deviance? Who makes the rules? How can interactionist ideas influence social policy?*** **[Introduction]** Interactio...

**Topic 5 -- Interactionist Explanations** ***Key questions: How is crime socially constructed? What is the labelling process? What is the difference between primary and secondary deviance? Who makes the rules? How can interactionist ideas influence social policy?*** **[Introduction]** Interactionist ideas were developed through the work of **Howard Becker** (1963). Interactionism is in stark contrast to the structuralist theories of functionalism, Marxism and feminism. Structuralists take a macro (large scale) view that the structures of society (institutions such as the family, media, education etc.) influence our behaviour, whether this is positive (functionalism) or negative (Marxism/feminism). As a result, crime has its origins in these structures. For interactionists, however, the structures are not significant, but people and their interactions with others *are*. Interactionists take a micro (small scale) view of society and choose to focus on individuals, they do this because they exchange meanings and motives which are very significant and can end up changing society as a whole. Interactionists believe crime is **socially constructed** and therefore they argue that crime should not be taken at face value, it's not fixed but relative and changing due to time and culture. Most importantly, they suggest that we shouldn't just accept that criminals are those people in prison, but rather that crime and criminals are created within society by our interaction with the police, courts and the media. **1 Howard Becker (1963) - there is a process to becoming labelled a deviant/criminal** Becker is the founding father of interactionism and created **the labelling theory.** Becker once said *'deviancy is not a quality of the act a person commits but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an 'offender'. The deviant is the one to whom that label has been successfully applied: **deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label**.'(1963)*. Becker is suggesting that [most] people commit deviant and criminal acts (**primary deviance**), but only some people are caught and stigmatised for them (**secondary deviance**). If most people commit deviant acts of some kind, it is pointless trying to search for the differences between deviants and non-deviants, instead we should try to understand why some people have been labelled as 'deviant'. Becker noted that as social beings our identity is largely to do with how others see us, if people see us negatively this could affect the way we behave. The labelling process happens in five stages: 1. **A moral entrepreneur tries to attach a label to an act of secondary deviance:** moral entrepreneurs are people with the authority to label others, e.g. teachers, police officers, judges. They start the labelling process by publicly identifying an activity as criminal or deviant. 2. **The labelled person may accept the label:** even if it isn't true a person's self-conception is largely made up of what other people think. 3. **The label may become a master status:** we all have different statuses such as friend, neighbour, sibling, or student. Becker suggests that the label could become a master status and take over the others. 4. **Self-fulfilling prophecy may occur:** if the label becomes deeply accepted, the individual may display signs of deviant activity connected with the label, seeing as people believe they are a deviant anyway. This completes the process as this confirms the label in the eyes of others. 5. Interactionists however, also believe that **an individual has the power to reject the label and negotiate his/her identity:** at this point Becker suggests that a person could just deny the label or not let it affect their self-image. They could also manage to **negotiate** by convincing agents of social control and then others that the label isn't true (see **Cicourel** below). **Becker\'s** most famous example is his study of the outlawing of **cannabis** use in the USA in the 1937. Cannabis had been widely used in the southern states of the USA, and its outlawing was the result of a successful campaign waged by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics who, after the changing of the prohibition laws, saw cannabis as a growing menace in society. Through a press campaign and lobbying of senior politicians, the Bureau was successful in outlawing cannabis growing and use. However, Becker points out that the campaign was only successful because it \'plugged in\' to values commonly held in the USA which included; firstly, the belief that people ought to be in control of their actions and decisions. Secondly, that pleasure for its own sake was wrong and finally that drugs were seen as addictive and as such \'enslaved\' people. The term Becker used to describe the campaign was of a **\'moral crusade\'**, and it is this terminology (and **moral entrepreneurs**) which sociologists use to describe ethical movements to pass laws. (See Mass media and moral panics). **2 Cicourel -- negotiation of justice** **Cicourel's** work on the police shows how influential moral entrepreneurs can be. Cicourel found that the police acted as moral entrepreneurs with working class and middle class youth, influencing the way in which labelling occurred for the two groups. The process of defining a young person as a delinquent is not simple, clear-cut and unproblematic. It is complex, involving a **series of interactions** based on sets of meanings held by the participants. These meanings can be modified during the interaction, so each stage in the process is negotiable. The first stage is the decision by the police to stop and interrogate an individual. This decision is based on **meanings** held by the police of what is 'suspicious', 'strange', 'unusual' and 'wrong'. Such meanings are related to particular geographical areas. Inner-city, low-income areas are seen as 'bad areas' with a high crime rate; consequently, behaviour in such areas is more likely to be viewed as suspicious. Interrogation need not lead to arrest. The process is **negotiable** but depends largely on the picture held by the police of the 'typical delinquent'. If the appearance, language and demeanour of the young person fit this picture, she or he is more likely to be arrested. It is not surprising, therefore, that Cicourel found a close relationship between social class and delinquency. Most young people convicted of offences had fathers who were manual workers. On a seven-class occupational scale, Cicourel found that one-third come from class 7. Cicourel explained the preponderance of working-class delinquents by referring to the **meanings** held by the police and juvenile officers, and the **interactions** between them and the juveniles. When middle-class juveniles were arrested, there was less likelihood of them being charged with an offence: their background did not fit the standard picture of the delinquent. Their parents were better able to **negotiate** successfully on their behalf. Middle-class parents can present themselves as respectable and reasonable people from a nice neighbourhood, who look forward to a rosy future for their child. They promise cooperation with the juvenile officers, assuring them that their son or daughter is suitably remorseful. As a result, the middle-class juvenile is often defined as: ill rather than criminal; as accidentally straying from the path of righteousness rather than committed to wrongdoing; as cooperative rather than recalcitrant; as having a real chance of reforming rather than being a 'born loser'. He or she is typically 'counselled, warned and released'. Thus, in Cicourel's words, **'what ends up being called justice is [negotiable]'**. **[Criticisms of Cicourel]** **Marxists** are highly critical of Interactionists who fail to identify where such stereotypes or ideas of a 'typical delinquent' come from. Cicourel fails to explain why the police hold such views whereas Marxists believe their theory can do so. **Gordon** argues that the bourgeoisie control the agents of social control such as the police and hence they purposefully set about targeting the working class. Cicourel has no structural explanation, he merely describes the process of class-based labelling. **3 Stan Cohen -- deviance amplification, moral panic and folk devils** Look up **Cohen's** mods and rockers study from the Youth Subcultures pack. This is a classic piece of Interactionist analysis, focussing on the way **moral panics** can be created and **deviance amplification** (review your notes on this) can occur. This meant that following the sensationalised media reports of problems between the mods and rockers more trouble occurred, or seemed to occur, because more mods and rockers attended the next Bank Holiday gathering and there were more police. Cohen's ideas about the social construction of **folk devils** were revolutionary at the time he wrote this book. **[Criticism of Stan Cohen]** **McRobbie and Thornton** note that these ideas may be outdated because we tend to have a more critical view of the media these days, and multiple media outlets means multiple viewpoints. Creating folk devils may not be as easy when members of the general public upload the news themselves having filmed situations with their own phones. Indeed, Castells suggests that because we all now have video capacity on our phones we are able to provide first hand accounts of phenomena which reduces the likelihood of a moral panic where only one view is presented by a narrow media provision, as happened in the case of the mods and rockers. **4 Philips and Bowling -- racial profiling and self-fulfilling prophecies** Philips and Bowling have suggested that the police over police ethnic minority groups, particularly black men. This may be based on racial profiling which is a process used to determine who is most likely to commit crime based on the types of people who have been found to be criminal in the past. Philips and Bowling suggest that if only one type of person is stopped and searched then only one type of person will be found to have committed crimes, hence leading to a **self-fulfilling prophecy.** This means that the police find black men to have been more criminal because the stop and search them somewhere between 6 -9 times more than white men (different surveys give different figures). This disproportionate figure not only leads to more black men being charged but may also lead to a culture of distrust and defiance within black culture, leading to further arrests, and so on. This shows that the interaction between police and citizens is not equal, with some groups attracting more negative labels than others. **[Criticisms of Philips and Bowling]** Functionalists disagree with Philips and Bowling, as they believe that the police work in all our interests and their stop and search rate policy is justified since it reflects the consensus that some groups need more policing than others. Murray agrees that stricter social control may be necessary for black men since they are more likely to have grown up without a father figure and hence they are vulnerable to being drawn into crime. Therefore, Murray suggests that the stop and search rate is justified, whereas Philips and Bowling do not.