Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Interactionalist theory on crime (Introduction (It is evident that not…

- - - - Becker, a leading Interactionist argues that an act only becomes deviant when society interprets it in that way and labels it. He uses examples of drugs and nudity in society to explain his point that whether an act is defined as deviant depends on the circumstances and the situation where the act is defined and who is witnessing it. Nudity He argues that nudity in the bedroom or the bath is generally regarded as normal behaviour but if a stranger was to enter the room then their presence would be regarded as deviant. Similarly, in nudist camps nudity in front of a stranger is seen as acceptable. However, if someone exposed themselves in a public setting they may be charged with a criminal offence. Therefore, there is nothing deviant about nudity itself, it depends on the situation and how it is interpreted. Drugs Becker applied the same argument to drugs, drugs taken in a hospital to relieve pain or where they are prescribed by a doctor are regarded as acceptable. However, drugs taken purely for pleasure are often illegal and are usually frowned upon by society. Therefore, Becker argues that deviance is not simply behaviour itself by the interaction between the person that commits an act and these who respond to it.
        
        Taylor Watson and Jock Young criticise this and say that most deviance can be defined in terms of the actions of those who commit them and not the reactions of society. This means without putting an act into context you are able to decide if it is right or wrong, for example, many people see stealing as wrong, this would therefore include stealing a pen from work and stealing from a shop. They also criticise the idea that we all have have knowledge of what constitutes as a crime, however, many people don’t consider law-breaking activities as criminal. Also, many people are unaware of laws.
        
        Becker also argues that how a witness interprets an act depends on who is committing it, so different people could be seen as more dangerous than other individuals. The problem with that is that some groups have more power than others to get their interpretations of a situation accepted. For example, Doctors often have the authority and power to label someone as sick or mentally ill, they are trusted to make professional decisions and people believe them because of their recognised labels in society. Similarly, policemen or judges have the authority to declare someone a criminal and a teacher can label pupils as bright, average or failures and then treat them accordingly. Therefore, in society some people have the power to enforce change through their interpretation of a situation whereas others do not have this power. Becker recognises the power that these respected people have and identifies these groups as the powerful. One of these powerful groups may be the police or judges; they have the power to decide whether an action is defined as deviant or criminal and whether a person is charged.
        
        Becker gives the example of a young people dispute in a working class estate, the young people may see it as necessary to defend their area from outside members of the public, however, the police may interpret it differently and see it as delinquency. However, the police may interpret it differently and see it as delinquency. However, in a middle class area this is likely to be interpreted by the police as youthful high spirits and nothing serious. The way it is interpreted will have consequences for the young people concerned. The police interpretation is more likely to stick and will spread and become a shared meaning in society and will affect the way that area is seen.
        
        The Interactionists do not ask where the labels come from. The theory focuses on the interactions that go on at the individual level between the police and those labelled, but this is ignoring the influence of structural factors on the police, such as socialisation and police culture.
        
        Marxists criticise Interactionists for not asking who the powerful are. This ignores the whole issue of power in society and the power of some groups to define what and who is deviant. For example, why should laws against robbery be enforced strictly when factory laws are not and why should it be illegal to smoke some drugs but not cigarettes. The theory also implies that the police decide who to label. This ignores the control of the upper class over the police. The theory also does not look at why some acts are labelled deviant and others are not. Plummer rejects this criticism arguing that Interactionism opens up the whole question of power.
        
        Interactionists argue that deviance is defined by the social audience.
        Functionalists argue that definitions of deviance are reached through a consensus of values. Marxists argue that the upper class have the power to get their definition of what is deviant accepted.
        
        However, some people can resist the label - Mirza
        
        He is vague about who the powerful is.
        
        Where do the labels come from in the first place?
      - Chambliss - Support for Becker
        
        Marxist, Chambliss provides evidence to support this theory, he looks at two groups and sees how the police treat them differently. The Saints are a group of middle class boys who frequently committed crimes both in an and out of school but were labelled as ‘good’ students. They used this label to their advantage, it allowed them to get away with their deviant acts and made their excuses seem more genuine. They enforce their label by doing well in school through cheating; their middle class appearance also advantaged them .This is because they were well-mannered, had nice cars, therefore, teachers respect them more. Chambliss also looked at the Roughnecks who were a similar group of boys who engaged in equal amounts of crimes as the Saints but were more involved with the police because they had a mutual distrust and dislike. The police felt that the boys were involved with criminal activity, they occasionally caught them but mostly from circumstantial evidence.
        The Roughnecks were labelled troublesome quicker than the Saints because of the label the police had given them and the distrust which resulted from the label. Therefore, Chambliss agrees with Becker that an act itself is not always seen as criminal because in the cause of the Saints and Roughnecks they both committed the same acts but only the Roughnecks were punished and labelled criminal. Chambliss also looks at how certain groups get away with crimes as a result of their label; he focuses on the police and how they interpret situations because of the label they give certain groups e.g. ethnic minorities.
        
        However, Chambliss does not look at where these labels come from, he tells us that the police act upon these labels of middle or working class boys.
      - Cicourel - Support for Becker
        
        Support for this idea comes from Cicourel who conducted three year’s participant observation research of the police. He tried to discover why some boys but not others were defined as delinquents. It was the probation officer’s job to decide whether or not to charge the boys who had been arrested, with a criminal offence. Cicourel found that this decision was influenced by their view of the ‘typical delinquent’. Typical delinquent - come from a “broken home” - poor school record - reject authority - ethnic minority group - low income background and live in an inner city area. In addition, parents ‘respectable’ backgrounds are often able to convince the probation officer that their child’s act was not really delinquent, that it was excusable – he was ill; under strain; he got in with a bad crowd; he’s got a bright future to look forward to; and so on. They are more likely to be able to engage in successful “negotiation of justice”. He claims that the police work with this notion of the typical offender. This means that the police have an idea in their heads about which groups are more likely to commit crime.
    - - Neo Marxist Jock Young provides supporting evidence for Becker's view, he looked at how drug taking in Notting Hill Gate became defined as deviant in the 1960’s and the focus of police attention. Young looked at the meaning the police put on hippies and their behaviour, they perceived them as dirty, drug-smoking individuals and because most people didn’t have much contact with the hippies this view and label of them became accepted as their identity.
      - Role of the police as amplifiers of deviance
        
        Role of the police as amplifiers of deviance
        Jock Young researched into a drug community in Notting Hill Gate (1967-69). He studied how the reaction of the police and the mass media, far from solving the drug problem, made it worse.
        Labelling of drugs as problem (Primary Deviation)
        In the 1960s, drugs became an officially recognised social problem. Young examined the reasons for this and concluded that it was not the actual taking of drugs that was condemned but the motive. Taking drugs to enable one to work harder or for health reasons is not condemned, but taking drugs for pleasure is, because this threatens the values of our society such as working hard, productivity etc. The drug takers life style is based on pleasure and freedom. Therefore, drug taking is condemned, and the drug taker becomes labelled as a criminal.
        Deviancy Amplification (Secondary Deviation)
        Young then goes on to show how the ‘problem’ is made worse by the reaction of the police and the mass media and how this leads to deviancy amplification.
        
        A. Mass Media
        The mass media build up a stereotype of the drug taker, selecting information that is newsworthy. Distorted images of the deviant are presented and contrasted with the ‘decent’ man in the street. The public are bombarded with information on the problem. Young stresses how the stereotypes that the mass media presented were inaccurate.
        B.The Police
        The police are then put under pressure to act. Young suggests that the police are predisposed to act against drug takers because their way of life is so different from the police. The police value sobriety and respectability, the marijuana smoker values pleasure etc. Also, drug takers provide the police with a regular source of apprehendable villains.
        C. Effects on drug takers
        Young argues that the social stereotypes of the drug takers and police action based on these, fundamentally transforms the social world of the marijuana smoker. Deviancy amplification occurs and in certain aspects the stereotypes become fulfilled.
        Process of Deviancy Amplification
        This process, (developed by Leslie Wilkins) shows the result of labelling and stereotyping. When society defines groups of people as deviant, people tend to react against them and isolate them from the company of “normal” people. The groups, once isolated, develop their own norms and values, which leads to further isolation. Thus a spiral is created. The pattern, however, is not inevitable.
        Young shows how the process worked in the case of the drug takers and how the stereotypes became reality.
        1)As police action increased, the drug community became more united in a sense of injustice and more isolated. It became less possible for them to re-enter wider society and deviance is more likely to increase away from society.
        2)Drug taking becomes more secretive and more important as it becomes the symbol of their difference. It becomes a central activity. Young suggests that as it becomes more secretive, the effects of the drugs are magnified.
        3)As action against all drug takers rise, the marijuana smoker and the heroin addict may begin to feel a common identity.
        4)As action intensifies, the price of drugs rises and the professional pusher and the criminal underworld become interested in the profits.
        Conclusion
        Young argues that the present law and the activities of the police and the mass media against drug taking lead to an increase of the problem.
- - - - Lemert suggests that societal reaction is crucial in deciding whether a person commits more deviance. He distinguishes between primary and secondary deviance.
        Primary deviance refers to acts of deviance that have not been discovered or labelled deviant. Everybody commits them occasionally in their lives and if they are not discovered, there is no consequence for the individual or change of identity. Lemert argues that it is not important to explain the causes of primary deviance because it is very common and has no effect on the person’s identity and doesn't affect how you see yourself. He argues that Subculturalists are misguided in attempting to find the causes of crime as they are only studying the delinquents who have been caught. Most people commit acts of deviance in their lifetime so deviants are not really very different from the rest of the population. The only difference is that delinquents have been caught.
        Secondary deviance. However if the deviance is discovered and publicly labelled, then the consequences are entirely different. Society reacts to the deviant, pushes them out of society and this has a radical effect on the deviant’s identity and future actions. As a result of being labelled, they become confirmed in a deviant role, commit more crime and deviance amplification occurs. Societal reaction is the major cause of deviance.
        Lemert gives an example from the lives of the North Pacific Coastal Indians to back up his theory. These Indians have a rich ceremonial life and from an early age, children have to make public performances. It is very important that the children are up to standard and are able to speak well or otherwise they shame their parents. Stuttering is regarded as deviant and a cause of shame. Lemert argues that the children are so concerned about the way the society reacts to stuttering, that this actually makes them stutter. Thus societal reaction produces the deviance.
        
        Lemert argues that if a person is not labelled deviant, then the self fulfilling prophecy will not occur and the person will lead a ‘normal’ life. However, the person may become more confident in their deviance and carry on committing crime with all the consequences for society and for the individual.
        
        Lemert uses the example of stuttering. However children, who are nervous, do not have a choice of whether or not they stutter, but that it is not the case for crime.
        
        The theory does not look at the causes of crime and why individuals commit crime in the first place. Lemert claims that it is not necessary to explain primary deviance since it is very common. However although most people do commit deviant acts from time to time, different individuals tend to commit different types of deviance and it is important to explain why.
        
        However, stuttering isn't a choice, it's something you can't avoid.
        
        Crime is a choice
        
        Ignores the victim
        
        Deviant knows they are wrong - feels guilty
    - - Goffman, in his book, “Asylum” researched into life in a mental institution. He suggested that once put into a mental institution with the label “mentally ill”, patients were treated in the light of the label and their actions were interpreted in the same way. This could affect the self image of the inmates who may eventually come to see themselves as mentally ill. Not all patients reacted in the same way however, some were able to resist their label.
        
        However, it is from the US and dated
  - - - Support for Becker’s argument can also be seen in Gill’s study of ‘Luke Street’, a ‘rough’ area of Liverpool. Gill argues that employers saw ‘Luke Street’ as a bad neighbourhood and were reluctant to give a job to anyone from ‘Luke Street’. He also argues that men from Luke Street often felt obliged to fight because they were expected to be tough.
      - Interactionism has been criticised for being too deterministic, i.e. implying that once labelled, the person has no choice but to become more deviant. Ackers suggests that people may choose to be deviant regardless of whether or not they have been labelled e.g. terrorists. Plummer, in defence, however replies that Interactionism doesn’t actually say this, and at any point the person can reject the deviant label. He argues that Interactionism stresses that individuals are free to make their own choices and to interpret what happens around them. He uses Goffman’s research as an example of this as the patients responded differently to being labelled. This, however, seriously weakens the theory, as we do not know who will reject or accept the label.