Introduction 3
History of Labeling Theory 4
Critiques of Labeling Theory 5
How Do Current Criminal Justices Policies Demonstrate an Application of the Theory to Practice? 7
Reflection 8
Conclusion 9
Reference List 10
Labeling Theory
Introduction
Labeling theory is the model of the ways, in which the self-distinctiveness and the performance of various people might be assessed or predisposed by the expressions applied to define or categorize them. This report will explore the strengths and weaknesses of labeling theory, along with the history of the labeling theory and its critiques. This concept is related to the notions of self-fulfilling insight and typecasting of the personality of an individual. Furthermore, labeling theory implies that the nonconformity is not essential to an action; nonetheless, it, on the other hand, aims its attention towards the inclination of the masses to undesirably brand minorities or those perceived as nonstandard in comparison to the typical social averages. This notion was specifically noticeable in the course of the 1960s and 1970s (Kroshka & Harkness 2008). Furthermore, a number of the adapted varieties of the concept have advanced and remain widespread up to this day (Link & Phelan 2012). A stigma is demarcated as a forcefully adverse marker, which alters a self-perception and communal uniqueness of an individual (Goffman1963). Labeling theory is strictly connected to social building and emblematic collaboration analysis. This concept was established by the scientists for the period of the 1960s and is widely applied by the criminal justice system in Australia. The adapted version of this concept has been designated as a refined social-psychological pattern of 'why labels are of importance’.
History of Labeling Theory
This concept appears to be a widespread extent of investigation and theoretic progress in the framework of the department of criminology (Adam 1978). Being invented, as it was said before, for the period of the 1960s in the United States at a time of remarkable governmental and ethnic encounter, the followers of this theory carried to focus center the part of the administration organizations, and societal procedures on the whole, in the formation of deviation and delinquency. This concept of labeling the individuals signified not only a theoretic but an operational disruption from the past as well, and it could rationally be contended that the theory was among the most leading hypothetical viewpoints in the examination of delinquency and deviation during the period of the 1960s to the 1980s (Bustamante 1972). Furthermore, it has been established as in charge for encouraging a vast amount of experiential trainings on the course of this period of time. In spite of the fact that there were times when the attention towards the labeling development was in deterioration, for the most part after the 1980s, this concept has been claimed to have somewhat of revival at the present time (Fitch 2010). The concept turned out to be a fragment of a more overall model of approvals in criminology, which consists of the emphasis of the discouragement concept on the crime lessening prospects of the endorsements, the emphasis of the practical justice concept on the significance of the style in which these endorsements are enforced, and the focus of the defiance concept on the separate alterations in the societal connection and the emotive response of an individual to the marker (Lemert 1951). This type of concept of crime is from time to time denoted to as the societal reaction models, for the reason that they aim their attention mainly towards the outcomes of the replies or feedbacks to the delinquency. These replies or feedbacks usually aim their attention towards three groups of performers: (a) informal societal other people, for example, the acquaintances, close relatives, or the spouses of the individuals who are committing misconducts, and who fail to hold with the performance of the person who is committing crime; (b) the establishments or institutes, for example the criminal justice organization, whose purpose is to do eliminate any manifestation of the wrongdoings; and (c) those people who see a danger by the means of several types of performance and are willing to get the lawmaking approved to make it illegal. Every single one of these rather dissimilar activities possesses one item in the same manner: each of them is a response to the wrongdoing. Moreover, they are supposed to be the markers for the reason that they own the feature of attributing a title or a monogram to any person or a particular type of the performance. As a consequence, the concept received a title of the ‘labeling theory’ and has been carrying it to the present day.
Critiques of Labeling Theory
There appear to be two primary types of denigrations of this king of concept, which are theoretic and positivistic. Representative interactionism is merely a single component in the advancement of the method. It appears to be a standpoint instead of an authentic settled philosophy, integrating a vast amount of the research, and copious numbers of various theoretic basics, as well as ‘functionalism’ (that has its origins in the concept of the social response) (Mingus & Burchfield 2012). The primary subjects have been principally designated by the criticizers more willingly than the supporters of the theory themselves, and the criticizers have aimed their attention towards the discussions on various topics, for example, if the deviation is actually impartial, or at all times communally assembled. Furthermore, the supporters of the theory are more attentive to the markers, their features, foundations, circumstances of presentation, and their outcomes. This point of view is rather widespread to a vast amount of sociological standpoints, in reality. On the other hand, several secluded difficulties have been carefully chosen; as a consequence, the Marxists are willing to debate against the interactionist fundamentals. The item of the debates has frequently been the toughest type of the labeling concept, where creating labels is the lone component in the assembly of the deviation, and if the outcome is at all times a self-accomplishing insight. On the other hand, this approach has been perpetually declared as a vulgarization. In conclusion, an abundant amount of the difficulties are documented by the concrete writers of the research on the subject themselves, for instance, the circumstances in which the implementation of the theory takes place (Davis, Kurzban & Brekke 2012). The criticizers themselves possess discordant benefits. As a consequence, various researchers claim that the official location of the control and influence has been ignored, at the same as the phenomenologists claim that creating labels is excessively deterministic.
According to Becker, “deviancy is a collective act, as in symbolic interactionism generally: it involves adjustment to the actions of others, although not necessarily a peaceful adjustment, and not only in face-to-face interaction” (Becker 1973, p. 241). Becker's description disregards the important features of the deviation supportive of proposing that societal interconnection is a widespread procedure (Gove 1975). This definition appears to be rather broad; on the other hand, at any rate, it emphasizes the uncertainties towards the classes such as ‘deviant’. Nonetheless, the majority of the population gives the impression to being aware of what considers being a deviant action. It gives the impression of being a rather nonconcrete sociological topic, plain illogicality, to propose that homicide is merely what is marked as a homicide. Becker provides a definition of the class of ‘secret deviancy’ that suggests that the deviation is able to be present deprived of being exposed and categorized. According to Becker, ‘secret deviancy’ “is often self-defined as deviancy in many cases, in anticipation of becoming a potential labellee according to collectively agreed definitions” (Becker 1973, p. 245). This concept requires a more constricted description (Fein & Nuehring 1981). The theory has been prosecuted of recommending unreasoning controlling opinion allusions, and assessed for being incapable of establishing the harshest criminal acts of the social order.
How Do Current Criminal Justices Policies Demonstrate an Application of the Theory to Practice?
As an presentation of phenomenology, this concept assumes that the markers that are given to people have an impact on their performance, for the most part the use of deleterious or defaming markers (for example, ‘criminal’ or ‘offender’) endorse abnormal performance, turning into a self-achieving insight, to be precise, a person who has been given a label owns close to none options but to follow the indispensible connotation of that verdict (Farrington & Murray 2013). As a result, this concept assumes that it is probable to avert societal unconventionality by the means of a restricted societal discrediting response to ‘labelers’ and substituting ethical resentment with acceptance (Cullen 1984). The prominence is located in the reintegration of the criminals with the help of an adjustment of their given marks. Connected deterrence strategies consist of customer enablement arrangements, arbitration and appeasement, victim-offender tolerance services (curative integrity), compensation, reimbursement, and the replacements of the custodial sequencers involving entertainment (Link, Cullen, Struening, Shrout & Dohrenwend 1989).
Reflection
A number of the wrongdoings, as well as the application of forcefulness, are generally renowned as immoral and illegal. For this reason, as for me, providing the labels to either typical offenders or to the people who have instigated severe damage merely as ‘criminals’ does not seem to be practical. The social order might apply additional detailed markers, for example, ‘killer’ or ‘rapist’, or ‘child abuser’ in order to show more evidently subsequent to the occurrence the degree of its condemnation. Nonetheless, there appears to be a perfunctory to some extent determinism in declaring that the use of a marker will perpetually adjust the performance of the person who has been given a label. In addition, in a case when one of the purposes of the punitive arrangement is to decrease reoffending, providing a long-standing marker possibly will be a reason for a preconception contrary to the criminal, causing the incapability to preserve work occupation and communal relations. While conduction a research on the subject of the labeling theory, I have discovered a number of the studies that identify the impact, which the application of labels could possess on the people who are held in prisons and mental institutions. As a result, I have developed an opinion that the prospects of the application of labels could result in a huge undesirable outcome, that these prospects frequently are the reason for the people to move away from the social order, and that those who have been provided with a label of suffering from a mental illness are continually being banned from the social order in outwardly insignificant methods. Nonetheless, if a person will look at a bigger picture, the union of these insignificant insults could radically change their self-perceptions. They continue to both forestall and observe undesirable communal responses to them and these responses hypothetically harm their eminence of existence.
Conclusion
The labeling theory has been widely applied not only in the field of criminology but in other areas of expertise as well. Furthermore, based on the material that has been used for this research, it could be said that the labeling theory could be comprehended as containing two central suppositions. Firstly, the theory contains the position features supposition that implies the fact that labels are enforced to some extent for the reason of the position or rank of the people who are implementing the labeling and the people who are being given these labels. Furthermore, the second supposition is the subordinate deviation theory that in essence deliberates over the fact that nonstandard markers generate difficulties that the person who is being given a label has to change and contend with, and that in particular circumstances, these markers could result in the bigger participation in the wrongdoing and deviation. The given concept is faced with the typical complication of descriptions and standards as well as those ascending from its resolution to choose a side, etc. The concept has been indicted of endorsing unreasonable guiding principle insinuations, and critiqued for being unable to clarify the most severe felonies of the social order.
Reference List
Adam, B 1978, The survival of domination, Elsevier, New York.
Becker, H 1973, Outsiders, Free Press, New York.
Bustamante, J 1972, ‘The "wetback" as deviant: an application of labeling theory’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 706-718.
Cullen, F 1984, Rethinking crime and deviance theory, Bowman and Allanheld, Totowa.
Davis, L, Kurzban, S & Brekke, J 2012, ‘Self-esteem as a mediator of the relationship between role functioning and symptoms for individuals with severe mental illness: a prospective analysis of Modified Labeling theory’, Schizophrenia Research, vol. 137, no. 1, pp. 185-189.
Farrington, D & Murray, J 2013, Labeling theory: empirical tests, Transaction Publishers, New Jersey.
Fein, S & Nuehring, E 1981, ‘Intrapsychic effects of stigma: a process of breakdown and reconstruction of social reality’, Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 4–6.
Fitch, F 2010, ‘Laggards, labeling and limitations: re-connecting labeling deviance theory with deweyan pragmatism’, Philosophical Studies in Education, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 17-28.
Goffman, E 1963, Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Gove, W 1975, Labelling of deviance: evaluating a perspective, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken.
Kroshka, A & Harkness, S 2008, ‘Exploring the role of diagnosis in the modified labeling theory of mental illness’, Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 193-208.
Lemert, E 1951, Social pathology, Mcgraw-Hill, New York.
Link, B & Phelan, J 2012, Labeling and stigma, Springer, New York.
Link, B, Cullen, F, Struening, E, Shrout, P & Dohrenwend, B 1989, ‘A modified labeling theory approach to mental disorders: an empirical assessment’, American Sociological Review, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 400-423.
Mingus, W & Burchfield, K 2012, ‘From prison to integration: applying modified labeling theory to sex offenders’, Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 97-109.
