Question 3
The society has certain expectations of an individual. The essence of labeling is the way people look at individual actions. In this case at a negative angle. If one does not conform to the cultural norms of the society one is labeled a negative name, for example, "a thief", a "cheat" or "a loser".
The concept of stereotyping and self-fulfilling prophecy brings out the labeling theory. The deviance depicted, however, is seen has non-inherent rather it is the majority normalcy in labeling minorities deviant from the social norms (Fennell, Dana, and Ana 305). I witnessed a friend labeled a negative name as a “loser". Undoubtedly, this affected his self-esteem in that whenever we are in school games or doing class work; he lacks confidence that he would emerge a winner. This occurred when he was given the ball to make a winning goal against a rival school when he lost it. The incidence affected my view of people who are not given second chance to proof their ability. I believe that we are never perfect, and each one of us has their faults. The labeling changes the individual social concept.
Similarly, if the labeling were in a positive manner, then the morale of the individual would have been boosted and considered as an achievement. The labeling done had a powerful impact on the person I witnessed. Labeling theory implicates stigma and a stereotyping scenario in laying prejudice to non-compliant individuals or non-performers as per the expectation of the society (Fennell, Dana, and Ana 313). Interestingly, the same society is expected to mount individuals to be better citizens of a community laying critics to failures (Dahms 21). Emile Durkheim argues that he labeling theory has relation to suicide. Indeed, the claim holds since if one has been labeled negatively, it may lead to stress and eventually suicide.
Works Cited
Dahms, Harry F. The Diversity of Social Theories. Bingley: Emerald, 2011. Print.
Fennell, Dana, and Ana S. Liberato. "Learning to Live with OCD: Labeling, the Self, and Stigma." Deviant Behavior 28.4 (2007): 305-331. Print.
