2.5 Labelling theory content

• What does labelling theory argue? 


  That everyone breaks social rules, but only some are publicly identified as deviants or criminals.
• What two types of deviation did Lemert distinguish between?

  Primary deviation and secondary deviation
• What is primary deviation and secondary deviation?

  Primary deviation (deviant acts before they are publicly labelled) was widespread but had little importance for the individual's self-conception. Societal reaction to primary deviance however, had a major impact and led to secondary deviance.
• How did Lemert back up his claims?

  With a study of stuttering among the North Pacific Coastal Indians (Native Americans) in which he argued that it was the societal response to children's speech defects that produced stuttering through raising children's anxiety levels.
• How did Becker argue societies create deviance?


  By identifying certain acts as deviant and labelling those who commit them as outsiders.
• What do deviant labels act as?

  Master statuses, overwhelming all the other statuses an individual occupies. Others and the individual concerned come to see the person solely in terms of this master status.
• What does labelling produce?

  A self-fulfilling prophecy in which the labelled individual adopts a deviant identity and embarks on a deviant career.
• What are new laws a result of?

  The efforts of moral entrepreneurs who engage in moral crusades to get the law changed.
• What did Cicourel compare in his study of deliquency?

  Compared rates of delinquency in two American cities with similar social structures and found that the official rates of delinquency were not the same.
• Why did Cicourel argue the deliquency rates were not the same in the two cities?

  Differences in the juvenile justice processes in the two cities
• How did Cicourel see youths who broke social rules as treated?

  Treated differently according to whether they did or did not fit the picture held by relevant officials of the typical delinquent. Only those who fitted the picture ended up being identified as delinquents.
• What was Cicourels argument in conclusion?

  'What ends up being called justice is negotiable'
• What has recognition of the possible negative consequences of labelling led to?

  The adoption of policies of reintegrative shaming in some social contexts. For example some projects in the USA and UK which aim to reintegrate sex offenders into the community once they have been released from prison.
• What did Labelling theory point out were social constructs?

  Crime and deviance are social constructs and therefore we need to examine which acts and which actors were identified as deviant or criminal and why others were not.
• What did labelling theory open up the study of?

  Both rule-enforcement and rule-making beside rule-breaking
• How does Taylor challenge the view that primary deviancy does not impact on a person's view of themselves?

  Even if people keep their deviancy secret, they are still going to be aware they are flouting social norms or laws and are therefore likely to see themselves as rule breakers.
• What type of crimes do critics argue labelling theorists focus on?

  A fairly narrow range of victimless crimes or forms of deviance, sought to promote sympathy for the 'underdog', but they are only able to do this by ignoring more serious crimes such as rape, assult and burglary.
• How do critics argue you can feel sympathy for the underdog?

  If you restrict your gaze to youths and those seemingly unfairly stigmatised by a morally conservative outlook.
• What do critics argue labelling theory oversimplifies?

  The possible responses to labelling, labelling may also lead to people ceasing to be deviant or challenging the label of 'deviant' for example the Gay Rights movement challenged the view of homosexuals as deviant through political action.
• How do Marxists criticise labelling theory?

  They reject the implicitly pluralist view of power with which labelling theorists operated, arguing that power is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.