Analysis of Criticisms of Labeling Theory
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Analysis of Criticisms of Labeling Theory
THEORIES OF CRIME.6 CR 4550 Dr. Lee Blackstone
What’s in a name?
Labeling Theory
Labeling Theory
Do labels inevitably produce a deviant way of life? Labeling theorists have said that this is ‘too simplistic’; however, there is a deterministic element to labeling theory. The implication is that a person’s behavior is PROFOUNDLY shaped by the ways in which people react to him/her.
Labeling Theory
Deviance is more likely to occur when those who do the labeling are amongst the FORMAL AGENTS of society: those empowered to enforce legal/social norms.
When given a label from those with power and authority, labeling theory argues that the individual has little power to resist the label, or to negotiate his or her identification with it.
Labeling Theory
Frank Tannenbaum (1893-1969)
Tannenbaum provided an earlier description of labeling in 1938. Emphasis was placed on labeling as a cause of continuing deviance.
Labeling Theory
“The first dramatization of the ‘evil’ which separates the child out of his group…plays a greater role in making the criminal than perhaps any other experience…He now lives in a different world. He has been
tagged…The person becomes the thing he is described as being.” (Tannenbaum 12:1938)
Labeling Theory
Howard Becker: “One of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behavior is likely to be the experience of being caught and publicly labeled as a deviant.” (Outsiders, 1963)
Labeling Theory
Becker did make the point that the process of labeling was part of an interaction process that could lead in other directions. It was possible that the label could have the intended effect, and stop a behavior.
Labeling Theory Still: a CORE position of the theory is that labeling people, and punishing them, increases or AMPLIFIES deviance, instead of decreasing it. Stigmatization leads to ‘playing out’ the deviant role, and the development of a deviant self-concept.
Labeling Theory
This step is crucial!
Labeling Theory: Secondary Deviance
Edwin Lemert (1912-1996) wrote about the concept of SECONDARY DEVIANCE: “A special class of socially defined responses which people make to problems created by the societal reaction to their deviance.” (40-41:1967)
Labeling Theory: Secondary Deviance
Secondary deviance is produced when deviants engage in additional deviant behavior, which they would not otherwise have done IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN LABELED AS DEVIANT.
Sometimes, the prohibition of certain behaviors may create a demand for certain types of deviance, too – such as bans on drug use, gambling, and prostitution. A ‘black market’ may be created to service such desires.
Labeling Theory
Both Becker (1973) and Lemert (1974) would claim that they did not mean to propose a ‘whole’ theory of deviant and criminal behavior. They stated that they meant to provide ‘sensitizing’ concepts as to why someone might
become a deviant, or a criminal.
Nonetheless, the theory has maintained from its beginning that people take on deviant identities and roles because they are hugely influenced, if not coerced, into acting in accordance with labels that are attached to them.
Criticisms of Labeling Theory
There have been questions concerning: The theory’s disregard for the actual behavior of the deviant/criminal The idea that the label serves to ‘coerce’ a person into a deviant identity and role Whether people just ‘accept’ a label, and do not fight back against it
Criticisms of Labeling Theory
Does a label CREATE a behavior?
Or do other factors influence a.) the continuation of deviance; b.) maintaining a deviant self- concept; and c.) stabilizing into a ‘deviant career’?
Criticisms of Labeling Theory
Not focusing on other causes of behavior is a result of labeling theory’s concern with the power of official labelers to single out some people against whom labels are used…and the supposed powerlessness of the people being labeled to resist.
Criticisms of Labeling Theory
The assumption in Labeling Theory is that what a person has done is NOT important – what is important is who the person IS. But is this correct?
Criticisms of Labeling Theory
SOCIETY DOESN’T IDENTIFY, TAG, AND SANCTION PEOPLE ‘IN A VACUUM’: by and large, people tend to be labeled on the basis of overt acts that they have committed (or are believed to have committed).
The deviant behavior may exist PRIOR to the label, and form the basis for such labeling.
Actually – there has not been much! Labeling Theory makes a lot of ‘intuitive’ sense, perhaps. But the theory would propose that PRIMARY DEVIANCE is unstable, unfocused, and sporadic. Only some of those who break the law are detected and labeled by formal authorities…in which case, they may form a DEVIANT SELF-CONCEPT and settle into SECONDARY DEVIANCE and a ‘DEVIANT CAREER.’
Empirical Support for Labeling Theory
Criticisms of Labeling Theory
IF the labeling can be AVOIDED: the idea is that the deviant is NOT likely to develop a serious, stabilized criminal career.
But there are few actual findings to support this.
The proposition from the theory is that the formal control system ironically makes the crime problem WORSE by labeling people. As a result – especially with juveniles – labeling theorists would argue that THE BEST CONTROL SYSTEM IS ONE THAT CONTROLS PEOPLE THE LEAST.
How would labeling theorists handle crime?
Juvenile Diversion Movement
Hence…whenever possible, juveniles should not be processed in the justice system. In the 1970s, the idea took hold for ‘juvenile diversion’ programs: programs which would train kids to make better decisions, serve in the community, and to improve their communications skills.
If the juvenile gets into trouble: she/he can still be brought back into court.
(And: in 1974: juveniles taken out of adult prisons, but this has been imperfectly applied.) While such diversion programs still exist, there is also a current
going in the other direction: more punitive measures against juveniles.
Radical Non-Intervention
Edwin Schur (1973) believed that it was better for communities to tolerate the behavior of minor
offenders – rather than risk making youth more serious deviants by formally labeling them. In this
sense, he was an influence on the juvenile diversion movement.
Schur did not believe that delinquency and crime was strictly a
‘lower-class’ phenomenon – something that we will see is a departure from classic theories
concerning juvenile delinquency.
“Net Widening”
Diversion programs have sometimes resulted in ‘net widening’ – where MORE, rather than fewer, juveniles are placed under control in the community, just because the policy exists.
Programs designed for youth come to rely on more juveniles being ‘sent through’ to them, which keeps their programs going.
Modifying Labeling Theory
John Braithwaite, in Crime, Shame, and Integration (1989), offered the idea of REINTEGRATIVE SHAMING. Braithwaite views shaming as SOCIAL DISAPPROVAL – which should a.) make the person feel ashamed, and b.) make others condemn the person’s action once they are aware of what the person has done. NOT the same as ‘stigmatization.’ Braithwaite thought that stigmatization was a kind of ‘DISINTEGRATIVE SHAMING’ – where there is NO attempt to bring the shamed offender back into the community.
Reintegrative Shaming
Reintegrative shaming, on the other hand, seeks to bring people back into ‘respectable’ society… Through gestures of forgiveness, or some kind of ceremony. The idea is to ‘DECERTIFY’ the offender as a deviant person! to help bring about lower crime rates Still…a kind of labeling, but done ‘informally’
Communitarianism
Braithwaite would support the idea of ‘communitarianism,’ which is that communities help to shape individuals The goal is to find ways of shaming, which would create genuine remorse in offenders, and then have them rejoin the community
Restorative Justice Movement
Restorative justice involves others (the victim, the victim’s family, one’s own family, teachers, etc.) to try and decide what could be done in individual cases. Such
models are grounded in ‘reintegrative shaming’ theory.
Faith-Based Religious Programs
‘Faith based’ prison programs also either implicitly, or explictly, have principles that reflect restorative justice and reintegrative shaming.
Such programs seem somewhat effective at decreasing disciplinary problems; but, it is not known how effective such programs are at reducing recidivism overall once prisoners are released.
In Conclusion…
Only Labeling Theory – derived from Symbolic Interactionism – treats the stigmatizing label as being so important to continued crime or deviance.
Revisions to Labeling Theory that result in a kind of ‘informal labeling’ through symbolic interaction (instead of the formal model through the justice system) might lead to more
empirical support for the theory.
Still, the most biting critique of Labeling Theory has to do with whether the label is the result, or the cause, of deviant behavior.
Assignment
Shakespeare Behind Bars depicts an unusual prison program, which allows prisoners to discover more about themselves through participating in a Shakespearean theater
production at the Luther Luckett prison facility in Kentucky.
How can you apply Control Theories, Social Bonding Theory, and Social Learning Theories to this program?
You may discuss particular prisoners, and their relationship to each other, the 4 pages,
typed and double-spaced.
CITATIONS MUST BE UTILIZED.
Shakespeare Behind Bars. Film by Hank Rogerson and Jilann Spitzmiller. Philomath Films. 2006.
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!