Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
interactionism and labelling theory - Coggle Diagram
interactionism and labelling theory
social construct of crime
labelling theorists are interested in how and why certain acts come to be defined or labelled as criminal in the first place. argue no act is inherently criminal or deviant in itself, it only comes to be when others label it as- it's not the nature of the act that makes it deviant but the nature of society's reaction to the act
Becker (1963)- believes social groups create deviance by creating the rules of what is deviant by labelling outsiders. Becker believes someone who is deviant is someone who has successfully been labelled.
social control agencies themselves may try change in the law to increase their own power.
who gets labelled?
not everyone who commits crime is punished for. it depends on the person's interactions with agencies of social control, their appearance background and personal biography and the situation and circumstances of the offence
Studies show that agencies of social control are more likely to label certain groups of people deviant or criminal.
officers judgement is influenced by age, gender, class, ethnicity as well as the time or place
Cicourel (1968)- found that officers have stereotypes of what a typical delinquent is like, resulting in the law showing a bias. mainly with class, officers patrolling areas of lower class people more intensely resulting in more arrests in that area. In Cicero's view justice is not fixed by negotiable, middle class are more likely to be able to get charged less than lower class
the social construction of crime statistics
Interactionists see the official crime statistics as socially constructed, the outcome of the criminal justice system depends on the label they attach to individual suspects, affected by stereotypes.
statistics only show the results of decisions made by police and prosecutors rather than the amount of crime out in society and who commits it
the effects of labelling
Labelling theorists claim that by labelling certain people as criminal or deviant, society actually encourages them to become more so.
primary and secondary deviance
Lemert (1951)-
primary deviance refers to deviant acts that have not been publically labelled , he argues it's pointless to seek the causes of primary deviance since it is unlikely to have one single cause. These acts are not part of an organised deviant way of life, just 'moments of madness'.
Some deviance is labelled as secondary deviance is the result of social reaction of labelling. being caught and publically labelled as a criminal incloved humiliation and once they are labelled they will come to terms with this label. This leads to a self fulfilling prophecy where they become their label. secondary labels will then provoke more deviance in the future
deviance amplification spiral-
term that labelling theorists use to describe a process in which the attempt to control deviance leads to an increase of deviance. more attempts of control=more deviance
folk devils vs the dark figure- the dark figure is about unlabelled and unrecorded crime that is ignored y the public and police whereas folk devil is when actions are over labelled and overexposed by the public and authorities
labelling and criminal justice policy
studies show how the increase in attempts to control and punish young offenders can have the opposite effect
when a person and their crime is labelled so bad by society they can internalise this and live up to their label
mental illness and suicide: the sociology of deviance
suicide
Durkheim (1897) studied suicide with the aim of showing that sociology is a science. using official statistics he claimed to have discovered the causes of suicide in how effectively society integrated and regulated their behaviour.
Douglas: the meaning of suicide (1967)
interactionalist approach to suicide
critical of using official suicide statistics due to being socially constructed. this is because suicide cna be classed as an accident or homicide depending on the negotiations between officials.
used qualitative methods instead such as analysing suicide notes or interviews with the friends and relatives
Atkinson: coroners commonsense knowledge (1978)
argue that it is impossible to know for sure what meanings the dead gave to their death, he focuses on typical suicide like hanging or overdose.
can be argued against as he is interesting rather than focusing on facts
mental illness
paranoia as a self-fulfilling prophecy
Lemerts (1962) studies paranoia, notes that some individuals don't fit easily into groups and result in primary deviance and being excluded. an individual's response to this can lead to secondary deviance and gives society more of a reason to exclude them. this can then lead to an assessment of their mental health and a psychiatric intervention where the individual will be officially labelled as suffering from paranoia and maybe placed in hospital
interactionist regret official statistics as they are records of people like psychiatrists who have the power to attach labels
institutionalisation
Goffman's (1961) study shows effects of being admitted to a total institution like a psychiatric hospital
found their old identity was killed and replaced by a new one which is achieved through various degrading rituals
finds some are able to be institutionalised and internalise their new identity in the outside world but others are able to adapt and accommodate to the new situation
evaluation of labelling theory
labelling theory shows that the law is not a fixed set of rules to be taken for granted but something whose construction we need to explain
-tend to be deterministic, implying once someone is labelled a deviant career is inevitable
-emphasis on the negative effects of labelling and gives the offenders a victim status
-focuses on less serious crimes
-ignores offenders may actively choose to be deviant
-fails to explain why people commit primary deviance before they are labelled