Labeling Theory

Labeling theory is a sociological and criminological theory that says that a strong, negative societal reaction to an individual's wrongdoing can lead the individual to become more deviant. Based on the principles of symbolic interactionism, the theory says there are two ways formal labeling increases deviance. The first is by negatively impacting an individual's self-conception. The second is by blocking access to conventional opportunities. While labeling theory was popular in the 1970s, it was difficult to prove and fell out of favor. Recent approaches in criminology are reviving interest in labeling theory principles.

Labeling Theory

Overview

Who we are in the world is often defined by a combination of factors. Our internal selves process our experiences directly and develop an understanding of what it is to touch, feel, see, hear, and smell the physical world. Our internal self interacts with the people around us, processing how they respond to us. The words we use to interact with others help us shape our understanding of the world and of ourselves. We use words to label the objects, people, and ideas that exist outside of us, and we organize our internal states to define who we are amidst all of the other ideas, experiences, and selves that we encounter in daily life. Thus, it is the interaction of self with both world and word that serves to define who we are. Our internal definition helps us to understand our role in society.

This is the understanding of internal processes that serves as the philosophical foundation of labeling theory. Labeling theory, also known as societal reaction theory, is a sociological and criminological theory that places the concept of deviance in an interactionist framework. Whereas other theories look to the individual in order to understand why some people choose to break a law or act outside the norms of society, labeling theory says that deviance is the product of the interaction between the individual and society. Unique from a criminological perspective, the theory suggests that the criminal justice system, which is supposed to reduce crime, might actually provide the conditions that create further deviance. Thus, labeling theory is a theory that supports a less punitive approach to wrongdoing.

Ties to Symbolic Interactionism

The history of labeling theory is rooted in the early conceptions of sociology that were developed at the University of Chicago's sociology department in the 1920s and 1930s. At that time, scholars at the Chicago School were busy defining the scope of sociology as a discipline. In attempting to understand the world of thieves, sex workers, and other groups considered by society to be deviants, they advocated for field observations and analysis of these individuals within their natural environments. These principles developed into the branch of symbolic interactionism, which emphasizes the co-construction of reality and uses ethnographic methods in order to explore human experience.

From a symbolic interactionist perspective, the concept of deviance is a socially constructed one. In order for behavior to be considered deviant, or different from what is expected, someone must first establish the expected behavior. Society as a whole, through its institutions, groups, and individuals, is generally perceived to be both the creator and the enforcer of these expectations. The process by which individuals come to conform to conventional expectations involves a complex interplay between the internal self and the external world. By interacting with others, individuals come to understand who they are and their roles in society. In initial conceptualizations of labeling theory, sociologists argued that the formal process of enforcement that society was using to deter deviance was backfiring. Instead of encouraging offenders to conform to societal expectations, the criminal justice system was actually pushing offenders toward a life of crime.

Tannenbaum & Lemert

One of the first voices to express this belief was Frank Tannenbaum, who is often credited as the father of labeling theory. Tannenbaum, like many of his time, believed that criminal behavior was learned as individuals interacted within communities where crime was prevalent. However, one of the most influential learning events the offender experienced, he believed, was that of being apprehended and formally labeled as a criminal by the justice system. This process, he said, was nothing more than a "dramatization of evil" (Tannenbaum, 1938, p. 19–20) that led the individual to develop a negative self-concept and served to position the individual closer to the criminal world. He wrote, "The process of making the criminal, therefore, is a process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self-conscious; it becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing and evoking, the very traits that are complained of" (p. 20).

In 1951, Edwin Lemert offered another important early conception of labeling theory. Lemert classified deviance into two types: primary and secondary. Primary deviance, he said, has its roots outside the formal criminal justice system. The factors that cause someone to make a first offense are broad and varied, and the societal reaction the individual receives for such an offense is not likely to impact the individual's identity. Secondary deviance is different, however. In secondary deviance, Lemert said the individual adopts the status of deviant as a primary identity. The difference is between someone who steals once and views the theft as an aberrant action from one's normal behavior and someone who identifies oneself as a thief and views stealing as a normalized and expected outcome of one's identity.

Like Tannenbaum, Lemert blamed the criminal justice system for contributing to the development of secondary deviance. He said that any societal reaction that stigmatized the offender could serve to push the offender away from societal norms and thereby encourage future deviance. However, in general, he did not feel that one instance of severe societal reaction would accomplish this. Rather, he cited a progressive process in which an individual's behavior was met with increasingly severe and stigmatizing societal consequences, begetting even more severely offensive behavior. Ultimately, this process would culminate in the adoption of a deviant identity marked by deviant beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes.

Although Tannenbaum and Lemert explored the role that labeling and stigmatization played in creating deviance, it was not until the 1960s that the approach was formalized into a unified theory and given its own name. At that time, sociologists had come to view individuals as acting from the perspective of particular identities that were negotiable and grounded in specific situations. The linguistic symbols used to name and define various aspects of the situation and its participants were presumed to be of utmost importance. Transferred to criminology, the labeling associated with deviance appeared to be a key to understanding how the criminal justice system contributed to the creation of deviant identities.

An influential voice on the topic at this time, Becker (1963) wrote:

Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, 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 the "offender." The deviant is the one to whom the label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior people so label. (p. 9)

Other 1960s labeling theorists focused on the impact formal labels had on an individual's developing self-conceptions. Spurred by a rebirth of symbolic interactionism in the sociological field and a sociopolitical context that invited critiques of state power, labeling theorists said that the criminal justice system was inducing self-fulfilling prophecies. In other words, by labeling offenders as criminals, the system was setting in motion the processes that would push individuals towards further crime.

Applications

Deviance Amplification

There are two mechanisms through which labeling works. The first, as already noted, is through changes in identity brought on as people who have committed an offense are faced with the stigmatizing reactions of people around them. As individuals treat the person as a criminal, the person is forced to respond and defend their actions. In this response, the individual is both utilizing an internal private depiction of self and responding from the stereotypical role that society has about criminals. As the individual negotiates these identities, the role that society imposes may become further internalized. This deviance amplification process is hypothesized to result in permanent changes to self-concept, leading the person to accept the role and identity of a deviant.

Blocked Access to Opportunity

The second mechanism by which labeling is said to work is through initiating the processes that leads to greater social exclusion and blocked access to conventional opportunities. These processes are similar to the ones that other criminology theories tout as the reason for crime. For instance, as in social bond theory, labeling theorists believe that the weakening of social bonds to conventional relationships play a role in changes in self-concept. When relationships with parents, teachers, or friends are weakened as a result of formal stigmatization, individuals are more likely to seek affiliation with criminal subcultures. By associating more frequently with other deviants, individuals are thought to have a greater opportunity to learn how to be a member of the community of deviants. As they achieve membership in this group, they become rewarded for deviant behavior, and this increases their motivation for such behavior.

In line with similar views put forth in strain theory, labeling theorists say blocked educational and employment opportunities resulting from formal processing contribute to future criminal behavior. For instance, those convicted of a felony have more difficulty finding conventionally respectable employment. Juveniles who are defined as delinquent may face harsher discipline in school, such as suspension, expulsion, or school transfer. This in turn raises the likelihood that they will drop out of school, limiting their chances for long-term education and career advancement. When conventional opportunities are blocked as a result of criminal behavior, offenders may find the opportunities of the criminal world, such as easy money or feelings of respect from fellow deviants, to be more appealing. The process again can be said to be one that serves to push individuals out of the conventional world into a world of criminality.

Viewpoints

The influence of labeling theory was fairly substantial. By the mid-1970s, it was the predominant theory on deviance in the field. Its impact was especially felt in the juvenile justice system, where, in an attempt to eliminate perceived harmful effects of the system, policies of non-intervention took precedence. Under these policies, status offenses were decriminalized, offenders were deviated from legal processing, and many who might have been otherwise incarcerated were not.

Deterrence Theory

In the 1980s, labeling theory faded and was supplanted to some extent by deterrence theory, which takes the completely opposite position that harsh societal penalties for crime serve to prevent future misbehavior. Labeling theory's decline is attributed in part to the difficulty of producing empirical support to validate its propositions. Partly, this is because labeling theory attempts to describe a complex process that was first recognized through qualitative methods. Thus, its complexity is difficult to reduce to a form that can be measured quantitatively. Those who attempted to make this reduction produced studies that sought to identify correlations between offenders who were processed through the justice system and the rates at which they committed second offenses. A few of these studies showed small but positive results. However, others contended that the results were possibly the result of selection bias, for those who are more likely to commit second crimes are also more likely to be referred to the criminal justice system in the first place.

One of the more damaging factors related to labeling theory's demise was the rise of an interpretation of the theory that viewed labeling as a sufficient and necessary condition for the production of deviance. In other words, some saw secondary deviance as only the product of labeling. Furthermore, many disregarded the role that an individual's interpretation of a label had in the labeling process. Instead, the mere application of the formal label was said to be enough to spur future criminal conduct. Although scholars have criticized these narrow positions as being misinterpretations of the theory, the fact that these perceptions were prevalent impacted the research, and because these ideas were not supported by the research, the entire theory was discounted.

Labeling Theory Today

Later approaches to criminology have revived interest in labeling theory principles. These new theories have broadened the scope of investigation into labeling; rather than asking simply whether or not labeling has an effect on offenders, theorists now investigate what kinds of labeling have an effect and under what conditions.

With regards to the types of labeling that have an effect, Matsueda has investigated the role that informal labels, which are labels that parents, teachers, and friends apply to an offender, have in the development of individual self-concept. Focusing on reflected appraisals, which indicate how individuals perceive the way others view them, Matsueda's work draws upon the core interactionist philosophy of labeling theory. So far, results have indicated that informal labels may be more important than formal labels in the development of self-perceptions.

In seeking to understand the conditions that impact whether labels are effective, several new ideas and theories have been proposed. One approach suggests that labels only have a stigmatizing effect if the offender is considered to be a full member of the society that is applying the label. In other words, a criminal label will be more devastating for someone who holds a respected position in society (e.g., a banker) than someone who is not as socially integrated (e.g., a person experiencing homelessness). This line of investigation was used to understand why individuals in certain communities seem to feel less stigmatization from labeling than others. For instance, Hirshfield found that in a community where arrests for petty crimes were frequent and the police were perceived by many to make frequent false arrests, youth felt little stigma from being arrested.

Unlike labeling theory purists, who viewed all formal labeling as harmful, subsequent theorists suggest that there is a positive role than can be played by formal punishments. Braithwaite suggests that labeling processes are a type of societal shaming, and shaming is often an effective means of social control. But certain kinds of shaming, he says, are more effective than others. Shaming that stigmatizes an individual tends to be ineffective because it degrades the offender. The only way for the offender to retain self-respect in such a situation is to reject the rejecter. Braithwaite supports an alternative, reintegrative shaming in which the bonds between shamer and shamed are reinforced rather than broken. Instead of being confronted the problem, the offender is given offers of reintegration and forgiveness.

Defiance Theory

Similar to Braithwaite, Sherman proposes that the way sanctions are imposed can impact whether individuals are reformed or whether they become repeat offenders. His defiance theory suggests that when rule breakers are punished in a way that they define as unfair or disrespectful, they are more likely to become defensive and deny their feelings of shame for having committed the offense. Thus, the sanction produces more negative consequences than beneficial ones.

In recognizing that labeling theory, like most criminological theories, cannot explain crime and deviance on its own, Wellford and Triplett suggest that the time has come to develop an integrated approach to a complex problem. As part of this approach, labeling theory can offer many contributions, they say. Some of these contributions will be related to new advances in research such as those offered by Matsueda, Braithwaite, and Sherman. They suggest that more research needs to be done to discover upon what factors formal labels are contingent, integrate labeling theories with other theories, and focus on the effects of different types of labels. They support more longitudinal research to examine the developmental aspect of how individuals interact with systems and are shaped by labels over time. Furthermore, they say that researchers should investigate whether labeling primarily impacts individuals or the social environment. With this kind of research, labeling theory, they say, can have a positive role in criminological thought of the future.

Terms & Concepts

Chicago School: The Chicago School is the school of thought that developed at the University of Chicago Sociological Department in the 1920s and 1930s. It emphasized hands-on observation and analysis of the world.

Defiance Theory: Defiance theory suggests that offenders are more likely to reject their punishers and punishments if they believe that sanctions are applied unfairly or disrespectfully.

Deterrence Theory: Deterrence theory states that individuals try to maximize their benefits from committing crime, and therefore harsh penalties can serve to deter individuals from participating in criminal acts.

Deviance Amplification Process: Deviance amplification process is the process thought to occur when an individual faces formal labeling in the criminal justice system and as a result becomes more deviant.

Ethnographic Methods: Ethnographic methods are qualitative methods of investigation used in the social sciences that involve close observation and extensive writing about individuals within their environments.

Reintegrative Shaming: Reintegrative shaming is a type of shaming that tries to invite offenders back into the community by offering forgiveness and reconciliation instead of stigmatization.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: A self-fulfilling prophecy is when someone's beliefs impact their behavior in a way that makes preconceived expectations come true.

Social Bond Theory: Social bond theory is a criminological theory that suggests that the relative strength of an individual's ties to conventional and nonconventional groups in society impacts the extent to which they engage in criminal behavior.

Strain Theory: Strain theory is a criminological theory that suggests that societal strains such as unemployment or an abusive situation can serve to pressure individuals into committing criminal acts.

Symbolic Interactionism: Symbolic interactionism views the individual as acting in accordance with how they perceive objects and meanings in a society as developed during their interactions with members of that society and with their internal self.

Bibliography

Ascani, N. (2012). Labeling theory and the effects of sanctioning on delinquent peer association: A new approach to sentencing juveniles. Perspectives (University Of New Hampshire), 80–84. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free Press.

Bernburg, J., & Krohn, M. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41 , 1287-1318. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cullen, F.T., & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological theory: Past to present. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Dellwing, M. (2011). Truth in labeling: Are descriptions all we have? Deviant Behavior, 32, 653–675. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Downes, D., & Rock, P. (5th ed.). (2007). Understanding deviance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hartinger-Saunders, R. M., & Rine, C. M. (2011). The intersection of social process and social structure theories to address juvenile crime: Toward a collaborative intervention model. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21, 909–925. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Hirschfield, P. (2004). Stigmatization or normalization? The declining relevance of labeling theory in disadvantaged urban communities. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Horwitz, A., & Wasserman, M. (1979). The effect of social control on delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test. Sociological Focus, 12 , 53-70. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Martinez, J. (2004, August 14). Understanding social factors in hiring decisions involving ex-felons. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, Retrieved July 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text

Matsueda, R. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97 , 1577-1611. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445-473.

Smith, D., & Paternoster, R. (1990). Formal processing and future delinquency: Deviance amplification as selection artifact. Law & Society Review, 24 , 1109-1131. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Sweeten, G. (2006). Who will graduate? Disruption of high school education by arrest and court involvement. JQ: Justice Quarterly, 23 , 462-480. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text

Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wellford, C., & Triplett, R. (1993). The future of Labeling Theory: Foundations and promises. (pp. 1-22). Transaction Publishers. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Suggested Reading

Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (eds.). (1994). Constructions of deviance: social power, context, and interaction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Behravan, H. (2011). Sociological explanation of prison re-entry. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 6(1/2), 286–296. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Dotter, D. (2004). Creating deviance: An interactionist approach. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Mustillo, S. A., Budd, K., & Hendrix, K. (2013). Obesity, labeling, and psychological distress in late-childhood and adolescent black and white girls: The distal effects of stigma. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76, 268–289. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Rubington, E., & Weinberg, M.S. (compilers). (1996). Deviance: The interactionist perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.