The Strengths And Weaknesses Of Labelling Theory

The Strengths And Weaknesses Of Labelling TheoryLabelling possibility and its theorists focus on the assemblages and/or exclusives who were deemed to be sorry and gradeled thus by edict. Labelling theorists studied the various inter trans secondionions between the iniquitous groups and individuals and the conformist purchase order. Labeling hypothesis was quite popular in the 1960s and un sniply 1970s, but indeed fell into decline-partly as a result of the heterogeneous results of falsifiable research. This es s post w liverish go on to show the origins of labelling guess, the possible action it self and will show its strengths and weaknesses using various case-studies and political campaigns.Tannenbaum (1938) is widely regarded as the offshoot labelling theorist. His main c at a timept was the dramatization of evil. He stated that if a individual is described as universe a nefarious then he automatic every last(predicate)y be shape ups one. Erwin Lamert (1951) founded the societal Re coifion theory. This theory is widely credited to be the forerunner of the present day labelling theory. His theory basically states that a person experiences loving divergence in two phases. The startle phase is cognise as the Primary distortion phase. The second is known as the second-string deviance phase. According to Lemert, the primary deviance phase begins with a flagitious act. He or she is then labelled immoral but has even so to accept the label. The main point of view is whether he or she has current the criminal label. If the person views themselves as a criminal then the supplementary abnormal phase has begun. The object of whether a person views himself or herself as a criminal is what incompatibleiates between the primary and secondary deviant phases. Lemert states that at that place be exceptions and mickle continue to stay in the primary phase, an typesetters case would be someone who switch offs that the so called criminal act is lawful as it is requirement for them to survive and earn money (an exotic dancer would be an example). The secondary deviance phase usually begins when a person has reliable the criminal label. They then accept themselves as universe criminal as wont it to counter (either by moving with similar peer groups or by separate(a) means) societys reaction to the initial act.Howard Becker (1963) is held to be the architect of the modern-day labelling theory. He is also responsible for coining the term moral entrepreneur which is a term theatrical roled to describe law making officials who get legitimate criminal demeanour illegal. Becker proposed that criminal conduct is dynamic in constitution and alternates throughout time. He on that pointfore suggested that the actual act is impertinent to the theory. What matters was the example of people going through the criminal justice system. Therefore Becker recounts that private motives and the influence by society has n onhing to do with criminal behaviour. This is the roughly debated part of the labelling theory brought about by him. Becker pays particular attention to how people and society react and operate with others who waste the criminal label. He mentions that once a person has the label of criminal associated with him or her it becomes stuck with them and acts as a constant label. This effect is so profound that Becker states that individuals with this label begin to be associated with the word criminal. All their other associations and labels such as that of p arent, employee, and so on take a back seat. It becomes so extreme that it becomes their one and whole status.Foster et al, 1972 say that in certain unique cases, the label of criminal may force an individual to integrate back into society and refine and try and show them that the criminal act he or she committed was a mistake and will non happen again (cited in Labelling theory). Although in most cases secondary deviance wil l be constituted in which the person accepts the label of criminal and begins to associate with similarly brand people, losing contact with friends who conform to societies rules (Becker, 1963 cited in Labelling Theory). It has occurred only when both the society and individual consider him or her to be a criminal or a deviant.Labelling theory however has m either inherent drawbacks. Firstly, according to Wellford (1975) the theory states that no acts are inherently criminal, and states that acts are only criminal when society considers them to be so. There are clearly some acts considered wrong in well-nigh all the societies and nations in the world, murder, arson are a few such examples (cited in labelling theory). Secondly is the process of self-labelling. Hagen (1973) brings about the concept of self-labelling, in which he states the example of a murderer who has avoided all suspicion (the act is non criminal if no one is around to witness it or label him). He goes on to say t hat the murderer may fool a conscience which will cause him to label himself or herself as a murderer. This goes against the labelling theory, which states that labelling must come from a third party. Thirdly, labelling theory is supposed to persist in all criminal activity and has an effect on everyone irrespective of their race, favorable score, sex and age (Becker, 1963). Other criminologists deem been doubtful of this part of the theory and hold that a persons race, social class and so on do have an effect. They mention that the supra mentioned factors muckle either enhance or mitigate the effects of labelling theory. There is however no scientific submit on the effects of the above factors. Marshall and Purdy (1972) stated that the studies conducted reflected actual behavioural differences that were reacted to differently by different people. Fourthly, it matters on who the audience is comprised of, as the aim of denouncement an individual feels depends on the audience s reaction to the act. As the labelling theory states, the first is the audience learning about the act that is considered criminal and non the act itself. As it has already been explained, if the audience doesnt know about it then it is non a evil. Different audiences may have different reactions to a crime and thus the punishment and the labelling will vary even though the selfsame(prenominal) crime is universe committed. The last drawback of the labelling theory is that the personality of the individual matters. This can cause problems. The level of stigmatization an individual gets varies on whether or non he cares about his label. Studies have come across certain individuals that have personality traits which makes them resistant to the labels conferred on them by society. The biggest drawback one may say that affects labelling theory is that it has not yet been empirically validated. Some studies found that being officially labeled a criminal (e.g. arrested or convicted) increased attendant crime, while other studies did not. Although there are m either studies that validate it, there are none that can offer significant data in its support. Labelling also involves both a wrong or deviant act and a deviant person.There are however several things that are wrong with the drawbacks. The first one mentions that murder, arson and so on are all criminal in most of the nations and societies. That is not a drawback but merely a statement of facts. It merely states what society currently thinks. In the future the mindset of society may change and acts that were previously considered to be criminal may be legalised. History has shown that society has and will change to accept criminal behaviour or to make legal behaviour illegal. An example would be that of homosexuality. In the early times, it was illegal. Now it is legal. The smoking of hemp is another example, although it is illegal in most of the societies and nations it is now slowly being tolerated in some and even being legalised in others. One of the other drawbacks also mentions the aspect of self-labelling. But as mentioned before, the individual or group may seek to rationalize their behaviour, thus avoiding the prospect of self labelling. An example would be a person stealing to satisfy his hunger. He would not label himself as a criminal as it was a necessary for him to do so. Thus most of the drawbacks can be explained.Lemert (1967) brought out the confederation between social reaction and deviance through his studies and research of a number of Indian kinship groups in British Columbia. He noticed that in some tribes, stuttering occurred among their members and their language mentioned stuttering. Other tribes however had no mention of stuttering in their language and had no members of their tribes stuttering. Lemert could not establish a clear source as to why that was so. He then went on to find that tribe that had stuttering, placed a very high meaning and emphasi s on storytelling and oratory skills. Children of those tribes that placed a very high emphasis on storytelling were often brought up in a culture that placed a high value on not stuttering and having good oratory skills. Those that were not able to conform to the rest of the tribe i.e. had bad storytelling and oratory skills were mocked. Lemert conclude that the pressure placed on the members of the tribe to have good skills and the posterior mockery and social exclusion if they didnt posses the oratory skills led to the development of stuttering. He state that in tribes where good oratory skills were not expected, there was no negative reaction and hence there was no deviance of the above type. He thus state that such type of labelling leads to more deviant behaviour.Thomas Scheff (1966) published Being Mentally Ill, was the first instance of labelling theory being applied to the term of Mentally Ill. Scheff said that mental ill was the product of societal influence, going agai nst the common perceptions of the time. When society finds some act criminal or deviant, they usually place the term of Mental illness on those who show that behaviour so that society can figure the reason for the behaviour and come to terms with it. According to him, society then places certain behavioural expectations on the individual and the individual subconsciously changes his behaviour to suit the expectations of society. He said that there are no different types of the mentally ill with just one type who conform to what society has labelled them to be. Walter Grove on the other hand was vehemently contend to the theory proposed by Thomas Scheff. Grove argued the opposite point. He said that labelling theory and the mentally ill have no influence on one another. He said that people are said to be mentally ill, when they display behaviour that makes them to be so. Grove said that society has no influence whatsoever on mental illness. He said that out-of-pocket to their ill ness, they behave differently most of the time and are hence treated as such. There have been studies to show how after being diagnosed with a mental illness labelling has taken an effect, such as not being offered houses and jobs, but there is very little to show that labelling was the cause of mental illness in the first place. Thus we can say that labelling does have a profound effect but has yet to be shown that it was labelling that caused the illness in the first place.Labelling can have different aspects as well. An example would be drugs. Marijuana for example is tolerated in Amsterdam and is legal in other parts of the world (Mexico allows four grams for personal use). In those societies, soft drugs and their users are trustworthy and are not labelled as deviant or criminal. In these societies we see limited drug use and little or no overdoses and or drug abuse. In other societies however, soft drugs are illegal and the people who use them are labelled as deviant. It is in these societies that the policing organisations have trouble controlling the abuse of drugs. This is due to the fact that people with low self esteem or a different/weak personality trait takes these drugs to show that they can parcel out it and want to rebel against society. Becker (1953) wrote in his book, the Marijuana user, that the drug does not mystify any addiction and that it has no withdraw sickness or any sort of substance that makes the user crave for the drug. The most frequent use would be recreational. He questioned fifty of those users and found that they did not have any pre-dispositional behaviour towards it. They would be able to smoke it at one time and at others, they wont be able to. Thus the quality of deviance does not reside in the behaviour itself, but is rather the issue of responses to that behaviour by various social audiences (Tierney). The daily mail ran an word which stated that some people were more wishly to smoke if they apothegm Smoking Kill s on it. This was due to the fact the these people had low self esteem and by doing something that brings them close to the edge makes them feel like a rebel. Thus we see that labelling though introduced to help society and make it a better place can actually make it worse. This part of the labelling theory has many policy implications. Intervention may make things worse. Labelling theory supports the estimate of radical non-interventionism, in which policy dictates that certain acts are decriminalised and the removal of the social stigmata surrounding the acts.The effect of labelling theory on juvenile behaviour is a bit more pronounced and clear. Youths are especially vulnerable to labelling theory. at once they start to believe in their negative labels, self rejection occurs which plays a study role in the social rejection theory. This self rejection attitude leads to the rejection of the norms of society and gives them a motive to deviate from conventional values of society. They then form bonds with like minded deviant peers. These youths then go on to reject those that have labelled them and tend to set up their own criminal lifestyles consisting of criminal behaviour. In schools, those that come from a working class family or a lower class, the youth gangs are seen as trouble makers compared to the middle class gangs who are labelled as pranksters instead. Research has shown that many of the youth gangs who come from the lower class get arrested and are labelled further as criminals.Gouldner (1968) argued that labelling theorists made the individual look innocent by the application of labels by control agents such as the police and society. He pointed out that deviance was created entirely on the whims of authority. An example to this would be the issue of homosexuality. Early in the century, authorities labelled it criminal and illegal. Those that were caught were persecuted as such. But now, homosexuality is an accepted fact in society and there ar e little or fewer stigmas and or labelling attached to it.Thus as shown in the above essay, labelling theory has many strengths and weaknesses. Those are, no acts are inherently criminal, there can be a process of self-labelling, it covers or is supposed to cover all criminal activity, depends on the members of the society or those that do the labelling and finally it depends on the personality of the individual. However, there are already inherent drawbacks with the drawbacks given by various individual sociologists. Those are that society changes, and so does labelling. Individuals can rationalize their deviant behaviour. In spite of these, the major drawback of the labelling theory is the lack of empirical data to support it. We can thus conclude that labelling theory does have an effect, but is not the primary cause for most of the acts committed.