Labeling Theory Vs Social Learning Theory

In criminology there are many different concepts, theories, and ideas that attempt to explain criminal behavior. All of them seek to define crime in a particular way or attempt to shed light on the reality of the “criminal” and why he or she is living that certain lifestyle. The Labeling Theory seeks to explain why people tend to act criminally after the term “criminal” has been placed on them. They have received that “label” so it is now their “reality”. As a human, being labeled a criminal by society would make it difficult to escape that pattern, so it would simply repeat itself. At least, this is what the Labeling Theory attempts to explain: the effect that a label has on people within a specific society. On the other hand, The Social Learning
Labeling Theory seeks to explain criminal behavior after it has already begun, and Social Learning Theory seeks to explain the social factors and attitudes that lead to criminal behavior. Yes, they both deal with social aspects of life mainly focusing on relationships, but they navigate through different periods of time in a person’s life. The fact is that there are many ways in which Labeling Theory and Social Learning Theory are alike, and there are many ways in which they differ. It is a matter of perspective or which lens one may look through at a given time in history to determine just how much they are
They simply make educated guesses about the causes of crime or the factors that cause deviance during childhood and adulthood. Firstly, Labeling Theory has many flaws according to other criminologists during the 1960s and 1970s. According the Plummer, “…it has the ‘paradoxical consequence of inviting us to view the deviant as a passive nonentity who is responsible neither for his suffering nor its alleviation (Labeling Theory). This statement quoted by Plummer and spoken by Gouldner, a main critic of Labeling Theory during its rise, is spot on. Labeling Theory does, or did, have a tendency to overlook the actions of the deviant. It placed almost no blame on the criminal and placed all the blame on the label, or even the society that gave the label. Yes, one could argue that being viewed as deviant would make it difficult to not act defiantly, but it is not so simple. People throughout history have sought out deviant behaviors for their own personal gain or out of impulse. Plummer states that, “empirical research can show that many people become ‘deviants’ without being directly labeled by others or are labeled because of their behavior and not merely because of the contingencies that surround them” (Labeling Theory pg. 193). This is an excellent point. Not every criminal would be able to substantiate that they turned to deviant behavior because they were labeled