To What Extent Does Labelling Theory Offer a Useful Contribution to the Study of Crime and Deviance?

To what extent does labelling theory offer a useful contribution to the study of crime and deviance? In this essay I’m going to investigate the Theory of Labelling also known as the Social Reaction Theory. Hopefully my essay will fulfil the criteria of the above title, an allow me to answer the question accurately and concisely. Why does crime exist? What drives individuals with in a populous to commit crime? Can crime ever be controlled or eradicated? By focusing on the Labelling Theory a branch of criminological study, it will enable me to partially answer such questions as posed above. I will now introduce various sociologists and philanthropists, whose studies within the field of labelling are held in the high regard as they not only define labelling but also increase the credence of the theory an help it evolve as a sociological concept. Edwin Lemert is regarded by many in the field of sociology as being the founder of the labelling theory. Lemert theorised the process through which a person may well become classed as a social deviant. The process consists of two stages; primary deviance and secondary deviance. Primary deviance is where the initial criminal act takes place and the perpetrator rejects any label which may be placed upon them. Secondary deviance occurs when the individual is subjected to a degradation ceremony (Garfinkel, 1956). In this ceremony the label of criminal is officially attached. The degradation ceremony usually takes place in court room with the judge passing sentence. However Harold Garfinkel also highlighted that “Public denunciations undertaken in other social settings may be just as effective”, because the stigma connected to such a label can influence the way in which family and friends react to you. After now establishing the concept of labelling theory, I will move on to analyse the theory and look at the strengths and weaknesses. This will able me to conclude my essay and fulfil the needs of the essay title. One of the strengths of the labelling theory is that it considers a wide range of criminals and crimes. Whereas some other theories seem to concentrate merely on official criminal statistics, however we must question the reliability of official crime statistics as not all crimes are officially reported, and therefore go unnoticed, but the labelling theory has managed to avoid this obstacle. Another advantage of the labelling theory is it provides an explanation to the high re-offending rate of youths that have committed minor deviances. In a study under taken by Dr. David Farrington et al discovered “that first convictions have a deviance amplifying effect”(Farrington 1977) albeit that Farrington also so “concluded that the deviance amplifying effect of first convictions wears off after a number of years, and that labelling theory requires revision to explain this” (Farrington 1978). Labelling theory also helps us to understand the process through which a normal person can evolve from one minor deviancy to fully fledged career criminal. Finally the theory has recognised the immense effect that people’s views and opinions regarding to labelling can have on the surrounding society, which in turn points–out the flaws and deficiencies that plague the criminal justice system. However, although labelling theory identifies that youths continue to spiral into delinquency even after initial contact with various authorities such as police and young offender institutes, it fails to substantiate why the youths commit criminal acts in the first place. Another weakness of the theory is the fact that it is deterministic. It implies that individuals do neither have free will or choice and that they are not only vulnerable but are at the mercy of society’s labellers. One of the main hypotheses that labelling theory is based on is the fact that no behaviour is inherently deviant or criminal, yet if it is society that deems what is a criminal act then why are certain acts(murder, rape, theft and drug dealing) considered illegal throughout the majority of the civilised world. We must additionally consider individuals whose main aim is to be a criminal. How can they be a product of society if they are actively seeking the label of a deviant?, and at the opposite end of the scale there are individuals who manage to resist attached labels and make a decision to become honourable upstanding members of society, we only have to look at the number of reformed criminal who have become advocates and mentors to help others to also overcome criminality. Lastly labelling theory is perceived by many (Gibbs 1966 “conception” and Scheff 1974 “sensitising theory”) as merely a perspective as it “lacks clear cut definitions and testable hypotheses” (Lawrence, 1998). In evaluation it is clear that the labelling theory does harbour some fundamental flaws, but it is extremely influential in the field criminological study. It provides us with an imperative and invaluable insight into society’s morals and values, and highlights just how powerful a society can actually be. The mere fact that our self identity can disintegrate and change, which subsequently leads to our personalities adapting because of the way people react differently to us is fascinating. As I stated earlier Thomas Scheff criticised the labelling theory as being a “sensitising theory”, in spite of this he realised the labelling effect actually possessed some academic merit and proclaimed that although the theory “may be ambiguous, ideologically biased, not literally true, and still be useful and even necessary for scientific progress”. At the very least labelling theory has potential to either be expanded upon or incorporated in to larger theories of criminology, and as Scheff observed this theory will be a necessity for the progression scientific study with in criminology. So in conclusion it’s undeniable that labelling theory is beneficial and does provide an extremely useful contribution to the study of crime and deviance throughout not only society but the world. References/Bibliography Andersen, L. M. & Taylor, F. T.(2005). Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society, Thomson Wadsworth Farrington, P. D. & Osborn, G. S. & West, J. D. (1978) “The Persistence of Labelling Effects” The British Journal of Criminology. (1978) Freda, A. & Laufer, S. W.(1992)._ New Directions in Criminological Theory, _Vol 4 Lawrence, A. R. (1998) School Crime and Juvenile Justice, Oxford University Press US Leoer, G. R. (1981) “Inmate Social Types and Deviant Behaviour” The British Journal of Criminology. Vol 21 No.2 April 1981 Maguire, M. & Morgan, R. &Reiner, R. (1994) The Oxford Handbook of Crimimnology

References: Bibliography Andersen, L. M. & Taylor, F. T.(2005). Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society, Thomson Wadsworth Farrington, P. D. & Osborn, G. S. & West, J. D. (1978) “The Persistence of Labelling Effects” The British Journal of Criminology. (1978) Freda, A. & Laufer, S. W.(1992)._ New Directions in Criminological Theory, _Vol 4 Lawrence, A. R. (1998) School Crime and Juvenile Justice, Oxford University Press US Leoer, G. R. (1981) “Inmate Social Types and Deviant Behaviour” The British Journal of Criminology. Vol 21 No.2 April 1981 Maguire, M. & Morgan, R. &Reiner, R. (1994) The Oxford Handbook of Crimimnology