To what extent is labelling theory the best explanation for crime and deviance?
Cambridge
O level and GCSE
2022
👑Complete Model Essay
Free Essay Plan
To What Extent is Labelling Theory the Best Explanation for Crime and Deviance?
The labelling theory, a prominent concept within the field of sociology, posits that deviance and criminal behaviour are not inherent qualities of individuals or their actions. Instead, it argues that these labels are socially constructed and applied to individuals by those in positions of power. This essay will delve into the strengths and weaknesses of labelling theory in explaining crime and deviance, contrasting it with alternative theories.
Arguments for Labelling Theory
Labelling theory, pioneered by Howard Becker, argues that societal reaction to an act determines its deviance. Becker (1963) famously stated that "deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an 'offender'." He argued that everyone engages in potentially deviant behaviour, but only a select few are labelled, leading to stereotypes that disproportionately impact specific groups.
The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy, closely linked to labelling theory, suggests that individuals labelled as deviant often internalize this label and begin to act accordingly. This can lead to further deviant behaviour, reinforcing societal perceptions and perpetuating a cycle of crime.
Deviancy amplification, another crucial element of labelling theory, argues that formal interventions, particularly by law enforcement agencies, can exacerbate deviant behaviour. This is exemplified by Stan Cohen's study of "Mods and Rockers" (1972), which illustrated how media sensationalism and police response escalated minor youth subcultural conflicts into significant social issues.
Further supporting this, studies like Aaron Cicourel's "The Social Organisation of Juvenile Justice" (1968) highlight how police and courts often possess preconceived notions of a "typical delinquent." Individuals fitting these profiles are more likely to be perceived and processed as criminals, reinforcing existing biases within the justice system.
Arguments Against Labelling Theory
While labelling theory offers valuable insights into the social construction of deviance, critics argue that it overlooks other significant factors contributing to crime. Functionalist perspectives, for example, posit that a certain level of crime is inevitable and even beneficial for society. Emile Durkheim argued that deviance helps clarify moral boundaries and promotes social cohesion by uniting people against wrongdoing.
Strain theories, such as Robert Merton's Strain Theory (1938), emphasize the role of societal structures in driving individuals to crime. Merton argued that when individuals are unable to achieve socially accepted goals through legitimate means, they may resort to illegitimate means, including crime, to alleviate the strain.
Furthermore, Marxist theories critique labelling theory for neglecting the role of social inequality and power imbalances rooted in capitalism. They argue that focus on individual labelling deflects attention from systemic issues like poverty and marginalization that contribute significantly to crime.
Feminist perspectives also challenge labelling theory for its lack of attention to gender-specific forms of crime and deviance. They argue that patriarchal structures within society contribute to crimes against women, such as domestic abuse and sexual assault, which are often minimized or ignored within traditional criminological frameworks.
Conclusion
While labelling theory provides a compelling framework for understanding how societal reactions contribute to crime and deviance, it is not a singular or comprehensive explanation. While it effectively highlights the power dynamics inherent in labelling processes and their impact on individual behaviour, it is essential to acknowledge the influence of broader social structures, economic inequalities, and cultural factors in shaping criminal behaviour. Consequently, a multifaceted approach incorporating elements from various sociological perspectives is necessary for a more nuanced understanding of crime and deviance.
Free Mark Scheme Extracts
To what extent is labelling theory the best explanation for crime and deviance?
Possible answers:
Arguments for:
- Labelling theory - Becker - everyone does things that could be labelled criminal but only a small number of people actually get labelled and this then leads to us forming stereotypes of who the criminals are;
- Self-fulfilling prophecy - being labelled as criminal or deviant causes people to live up to the label and act accordingly;
- Deviancy amplification - police and other formal agents’ labels can actually cause more crime and deviance in society e.g. Young ‘The Drugtakers’ and Cohen ‘Mods and Rockers’;
- Police targeting - the police target certain social groups e.g. stop and search rates for some social groups are far higher than for others which explains their distrust of the police and their criminality;
- Deviant career - when a labelled person’s self-identity starts to change (due to the labelling process) then they may adopt a deviant career and join an organised deviant group e.g. a gang, that justifies and normalises their offending;
- Cicourel typical delinquent - this study shows that courts and police have a picture of who typically commits crime and those individuals that fit this picture are more likely to be thought of as criminals;
- Master status - this status overrides all others and becomes the way an individual sees themselves as well as how others see them - if this is as a criminal then it is not surprising that criminal behaviour continues;
- Secondary and primary deviance - Lemert - primary deviance refers to acts that are not labelled as criminal, secondary to those that are;
- Power - labels have such an influence on people because they are given by those in positions of power such as the police, the courts and teachers. This makes the criminal label stick and hard to get rid of thus a life of crime becomes the only option;
- Any other reasonable response.
Arguments against:
- Functionalism - some crime and deviance is necessary in society as it reminds people of the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour thus promoting social order;
- Merton’s strain theory - crime occurs when there is a mismatch between individuals’ goals and their ability to achieve these legitimately;
- Cohen status frustration - crime is committed because some people feel anger and frustration about their position in society and inability to gain status legitimately;
- Relative deprivation - in a consumer society many people feel it is unjust that they do not have what others do which may lead some to crime;
- Marxism - material deprivation - those in poverty are more likely to turn to crime because they need money to survive;
- Feminism - domestic abuse and sexual assault - this is committed due to patriarchal structures in society and a male need to prove their power and dominance, keeping women ‘in their place’;
- Messerschmidt - masculinity - males feel a lot of pressure to be the provider and to act tough - this can sometimes lead to criminal behaviour;
- Postmodernism - crime is committed because it is thrilling and exciting;
- Miller - focal concerns - crime and deviance is committed because many of the norms and values of the working class are similar to crime and deviance;
- Self-negating prophecy - labels do not have to be lived up to, they can be resisted instead;
- Any other reasonable response.