Subject: CAPE Sociology Controlling Violent Crimes - Gleaner May 17, 2009 - New Minister Old

Problems

Ian Boyne, Contributor

A new minister of national security, new broadcast to the nation, new expectations, but the same
old intractable crime problems. The national security ministry has been the burial ground for
many a hopeful minister. Why would it be any different for Dwight Nelson?
Jamaica's crime problem has proven impervious to the threatened 'onslaught' of successive
security ministers. And Dwight Nelson has taken over at a most inauspicious time: a time when
resources are scarce and frustrations high. One thing we know: there is no need for the new
minister to commission a new study. Crime has been the most-studied problem in Jamaica. I
would suggest that he does not leave out of his required reading the 2009 GraceKennedy
Foundation Lecture by the country's premier scholar on the issue, Professor Anthony Harriott.

Main security issues

In a lecture titled 'Controlling Violent Crime: Models and Policy Options', Harriott set out clearly
and without obfuscation the country's main security issues and the main policy prescriptions on
the table. He has tackled the issues with a keen sense of nuance, sophistication, balance and deep
knowledge. Anthony Harriott is no ivory tower intellectual: his deep grass-roots grounding is
evident in the published lecture, and those of us who know him from the 1970s know of his
strong social activism and attachment to the working class. He admirably combines scholarship
with praxis, and he has clearly been listening to the people. Nelson needs to listen to him.
Already Nelson's stated intention to go after the gangs and the organised crime network - a focus
also of former National Security Minister Peter Phillips - finds support in Harriott's thesis that
organised crime is Jamaica's greatest security challenge. And organised crime is facilitated and
bolstered by garrison politics and the politics-gangs network. Politicians have been
acknowledging this but doing very little about it. If the power of the dons is not broken and if
gangs can still find safe havens in the garrisons, then we can forget the fight against crime.
"Organised crime groups are able to use their criminally acquired wealth to corrupt some of the
key institutions of the country, including the police force, elements in the state bureaucracy and
the political parties," said Professor Harriott in his highly engaging lecture. "The garrison
communities and constituencies are the most toxic expressions of this nexus. They are safe
havens for organised crime and safe seats for the political parties. Both sets of actors, therefore,
have an interest in preserving the garrisons."
How free will people be?
The minister's decision to go into troubled communities is fine and good, but when some of these
communities are tightly controlled by criminal dons and shottas, how free will the people be to
speak their minds and to counsel the minister on what really needs to be done? The minister
spoke in his broadcast on Sunday about these consultations providing him with "a unique
opportunity for direct dialogue," to "listen to the views of the people" and "evaluate their
recommendations". But those people know that they have to go back home and so they can't
speak outside of what the criminal dictators will allow them to say.
We talk about democracy, but in many of our inner-city communities citizens are not free to
speak their minds. In many of our communities the people have to choose life over free speech.
That's the cruel choice they have. Until we find effective ways of crushing the garrisons, we will
not only not solve crime we will not be a truly liberal democracy.

Tolerant of criminality
But the problem of crime is not just a problem of politics and politicians. Because of what the
late Professor Carl Stone called "the dominance of money", we have large numbers of people
who are tolerant of certain criminal activities as long as 'money is running'.
The Jamaica National Victimisation Survey (2006) found that 43 per cent of those respondents
who live in communities with area dons claimed they had done "positive things" for the
communities. So often we see on television people blocking roads and creating mayhem because
some notorious criminals are shot or arrested. While some are forced to act outraged, others
genuinely appreciate the blood money. Now you say if politicians were providing enough
opportunities people would not have to turn to the dons. And that leads us to another deeply
troubling issue which Harriott dealt with - the fact that any success in destabilising criminal
gangs will have an negative economic costs.
The underground economy contributes to our gross domestic product. If we hit the drug trade,
especially in these tough times, our economy will also take a hit and we will risk more robberies
and property crimes. Reduced funds from the drug trade could affect our exchange rate. When
drug money stops flowing in inner-city communities, there is likely to be more intra- and inter-
community violence, more theft and increased antisocial behaviour (more sexually transmitted
diseases, as more young girls and women trade sex).
Issue of values
This is why I have maintained that the issue of values is the most significant one which we face
in tackling crime and other social challenges in Jamaica. Hard-nosed, 'pragmatic' and
'sophisticated' thinkers and analysts tend to dismiss those issues as soft, even Pollyannaish, but
they don't think deeply enough. If the people in the garrisons and other poor communities come
to value peace, harmony and love above money, then when the blood money is cut off they
would pay the price. If we had a culture in which people would literally die for principles - death
before dishonour to their values - then the power of the dons and the politicians would not be as
strong.
Repeatedly, Harriott bemoaned the tolerance for certain types of behaviour but did not go as far
as in making the social-capital-deficit argument that Don Robotham and I would. Harriott
implicitly recognised the centrality of values by saying "the violence problem can no longer be
explained only in terms of lack," and that "the explanation must include the presence of
alternative socialisation, alternative validation of behaviour".
Success in disrupting the gangs - a major plank in Minister Nelson's anti-crime strategy - will
have a serious political cost that he must contemplate. Said Harriott in his GraceKennedy
Foundation Lecture (which the company has done poorly in publicising - oh for the days of
Corina Meeks!): "Any administration that successfully weakens and controls organised crime
and as a consequence weakens its links with gunmen who are still able to retain their power and
influence in the communities, must also consider its impact on their electoral prospects.
"They would no longer have the services of the gunmen and could not rely on the police for
reliable protection against gunmen in service of their opponents. The successful administration
would thus be exposed and vulnerable to these developments, unless both sides agree not to
exploit whatever political opportunities and advantages might be created." The parties have
always claimed agreement on this, and have put it on paper, but on the ground it's a different
story.

Add pressure
This is where civil society has to add the pressure on the politicians. They will only change when
sufficient pressure is brought to bear on them and when it becomes too costly for them to
continue the garrison politics and the politics-criminality link.
One of the most useful and engaging part of the 2009 GraceKennedy Foundation Lecture was the
comparison between the two dominant models of crime control: The crime fighting, 'tough
policing' approach and the human rights, social justice (social interventionist) approach. In the
lecture, Harriott made a strong critique of the crime-fighting strategy, the one I have favoured in
the short term.
Harriott said bluntly, "There is an undemocratic impulse in crime fighting." What I found
laudable about Anthony Harriott, my being an ardent advocate of the crime-fighting strategy
which he knocked, was that he did so with a keen understanding of my perspective (without the
usual misrepresentations) combined with a rationally plausible critique. It is not a skill many of
our Jamaican debaters have.
Harriott admitted that "increased arrests, increased incarceration all tend to have short-term
deterrent effects". But that is precisely what is needed in a context of galloping crime, Anthony.
You want some breathing space. That is why the crime bills which the Government has proposed
should be passed without delay. We are in a security crisis. Does the Opposition disagree? We
understand the problem of trust and how that makes it difficult to support any bill which gives
increased powers to the police. But until we disband the police force, they are what we have to
work with.
"The crime-fighting model has been a general failure," Harriott said. Yes. But is the social justice
model any better for our circumstances in the short term?
Key admission
Harriott made a key admission which all the human rights advocates have always missed.
Confessed Harriott: "The big challenge for this (social justice) model in the present context
would be to demonstrate its relevance and power in dealing with the contemporary challenges of
organised crime and the subculture of violence."
Excellent point - if the human rights advocates would only address it. Harriott pointed out that
the roots of our crime problem are not just in social marginalisation and lack of legitimate
opportunities. (I hope Wilmot Perkins is listening), "but the existence of an elaborate illegitimate
opportunity structure and the emergence of a subculture of violence. The latter means that even if
the socio-economic problems are addressed, high rates of violence are likely to continue for
some time. Attending to root socio-economic causes is unlikely to yield much short-to-medium-
term effects on the homicide rates."
For years I have been trying to get the social justice model advocates to understand that one
simple point as they talk incessantly about 'social intervention', tackling poverty, etc.
The model ignores our context and is bankrupt in terms of short-term strategies. In light of the
global economic crisis, the social justice model is even more severely limited and irrelevant.
For us to have a serious discourse on crime, we have to read Anthony Harriott.
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.cm or
columns@gleanerjm.com
Unit 2

Module 2 (Social order Social control and Deviance)

1. Define the term crime.

2. Define the term deviance.

3. Differentiate between crime and deviance.

4. What is meant by the term social control?

5. How is social order achieved in the midst of crime and deviance?

6. Based on the article above what are the major factors contributing to crime and violence
in Jamaica?

7. With regard to the article what are some of the proposed solutions to crime and violence
in Jamaica? In giving your response make reference to the theorists whom Ian Bowen
highlighted.

8. What would you consider some of the problems that we face as a society that prevent
some of the implemented policies on crime from working?

9. What do you propose as a means of achieving crime reduction in the Jamaican society>
Please make references to social, economic and political factors.

10. Crime is necessary we should not want to get rid of it in its entirety. Discuss.
1. Functionalist Theories of Crime
2. Functionalism

Society is made up of ‘building blocks’ - living organism.

All parts exist to enable it to work as a whole.

Born into an existing system of moral codes which are learned through socialisation.

Deviance occurs through social pressures.

3. Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

Crime is necessary for society.

Deviance important to the well-being of society and challenges to established moral

and legal laws acted to unify the law-abiding.

Fails to recognise causes of crime

4. Further Functionalist Theories

Robert Merton (1938) – crime due to anomie and strain. Using illegal means to
achieve material goals.

Albert Cohen (1955) – ‘status frustration’. Lower class using illegal means to achieve
middle class goals.

Cloward and Ohlin (1961) – working class have less opportunity to succeed.

Why do people engage in crime according to strain theory? They experience strain or
stress, they become upset, and they sometimes engage in crime as a result. They may
engage in crime to reduce or escape from the strain they are experiencing. For example,
they may engage in violence to end harassment from others, they may steal to reduce
financial problems, or they may run away from home to escape abusive parents. They
may also engage in crime to seek revenge against those who have wronged them. And
they may engage in the crime of illicit drug use to make themselves feel better.
A recent version of strain theory is Robert Agnew's 1992 general strain theory. Agnew's
theory draws heavily on previous versions of strain theory, particularly those of Robert
Merton, Albert Cohen, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, David Greenberg, and Delbert
Elliott and associates. Agnew, however, points to certain types of strain not considered
in these previous versions and provides a fuller discussion of the conditions under which
strain is most likely to lead to crime.

Read more: Crime Causation: Sociological Theories - Strain Theory - Delinquency,

People, Money, and Engage - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/814/Crime-
Causation-Sociological-Theories-Strain-theory.html#ixzz1hHBx8xyQ

Differential Association Theory

Differential association theory was Sutherland's major sociological

contribution to criminology; similar in importance to strain theory and social
control theory. These theories all explain deviance in terms of the
individual's social relationships.

Sutherland's theory departs from the pathological perspective and biological

perspective by attributing the cause of crime to the social context of
individuals. "He rejected biological determinism and the extreme
individualism of psychiatry, as well as economic explanations of crime. His
search for an alternative understanding of crime led to the development of
differential association theory. In contrast to both classical and biological
theories, differential association theory poses no obvious threats to the
humane treatment of those identified as criminals."(Gaylord, 1988:1)

The principle of differential association asserts that a person becomes

delinquent because of an "excess" of definitions favorable to violation of law
over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. In other word, criminal
behavior emerges when one is exposed to more social message favoring
conduct than prosocial messages (Sutherland, 1947).

Sutherland argued that the concept of differential association and differential

social organization could be applied to the individual level and to aggregation
(or group) level respectively. While differential association theory explains
why any individual gravitates toward criminal behavior, differential social
organization explains why crime rates of different social entities different
from each other's.

The first explicit statement of the theory of differential association appears in

the 1939 edition of Principles of Criminology and in the fourth edition of
it, he presented his final theory. His theory has 9 basic postulates.

1. Criminal behavior is learned.

This means that criminal behavior is not inherited, as such; also the person who is not already
trained in crime does not invent criminal behavior.

2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.

This communication is verbal in many cases but includes gestures.

3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.

Negatively, this means the impersonal communication, such as movies or newspaper play a
relatively unimportant part in committing criminal behavior.

4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the
crime, which are sometimes very simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives,
rationalizations, and attitudes.

5. The specific direction of the motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes
as favorable or unfavorable.

This different context of situation usually is found in US where culture conflict in relation to the
legal code exists.

6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law

over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.

This is the principle of differential association. When people become criminal, they do so not
only because of contacts with criminal patterns but also because of isolation from anticriminal
patterns. Negatively, this means that association which are neutral so far as crime is concerned
have little or no effect on the genesis of criminal behavior.

7. Differential association may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.

Priority seems to be important principally through its selective influence and intensity has to do
with such things as the prestige of the source of a criminal or anticriminal pattern and with
emotional reactions related to the association. These modalities would be rated in quantitative
form and mathematical ratio but development of formula in this sense has not been developed
and would be very difficult.

8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal
patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.

Negatively, this means that the learning of criminal behavior is not restricted to the process of
imitation. A person who is seduced, for instance, learns criminal behavior by association, but this
would not be ordinarily described as imitation.

9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by
those general needs and values since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs
and values. Thieves generally steal in order to secure money, but likewise honest laborers work
in order to money. The attempts to explain criminal behavior by general drives and values such
as the money motive have been, and must completely to be, futile, since they explain lawful
behavior as completely as they explain criminal behavior. They are similar to respiration, which
is necessary for any behavior, but which does not differentiate criminal from noncriminal
behavior. (Sutherland, 1974: 75-76)

In summary, he believed that an individual’s associations are determined in

a general context of social organization (for instance, family income as a
factor of determining residence of family and in many cases, delinquency
rate is largely related to the rental value of houses) and thus differential
group organization as an explanation of various crime rates is consistent
with the differential association theory. (Sutherland, 1974: 77)

Much of Sutherland’s theory relied upon the work of Chicago school

theorists, Shaw and McKay (1931,1969). According to Shaw and McKay,
they found that "delinquency rates increased as one moved away from the
center of the city, and ecological rates of delinquency remained stable over
generations despite a complete turnover of ethnic composition and social
disorganization explained the high rates of delinquency in the inner-city."
(Matsueda: 1988: 280) As a matter of fact, this statement requires
qualification because once you pass through the zone in transition,
delinquency rates drop as you move out towards the suburbs.
A second contribution to differential association was Sellin, Wirth and
Sutherland's works on the influenced of culture conflict on crime. They
claimed that crime in modern societies is rooted in the conflict of competing
cultures. Different crime rates were explained by the culture conflict
approach.

A third factor was drawn from his own interviews, particularly those of Chic
Conwell done for The Professional Thief. Sutherland concluded that not everyone can
become a professional thief, but rather one must be accepted into a group of professional thieves and
then indoctrinated into the profession (Matsueda: 1988: 280). In the book, he emphasized differential
association by saying that "the final definition of the professional thief is found within the differential
association. A person who is received in the group and recognized as a professional thief is a
professional thief. The differential element in the association of thieves is primarily functional rather
than geographical." (Jacoby, 1994:11) In sum, he showed general characteristic of professional thief and
their peculiar way of living in detail in terms of differential association:

The professional thief is one who steals professionally. He makes a regular business of stealing
and every act is carefully planned. He has different technical skills and methods that are different
from those of other professional criminals. He is generally migratory and may work in all the
cities of the U.S.

The attitude of one thief toward another is very friendly. Not only does one thief warn another
thief of danger but also he avoids doing things that will put other thieves in danger. Thieves also
give much assistance to other thieves who are in trouble. Personal feelings seldom affect this.
Thieves are all professionally united against law-enforcement bodies, which are the only
common to all thieves.

Codes of ethics are much more binding among thieves than among legitimate commercial firms.
They seldom betray other thieves. Prisoners squawk (inform) for one purpose only-to relieve
themselves of punishment. The worst penalty is to keep him broke by spreading the news that he
has squawked, which makes it impossible for him to get into any mob.

If one mob come into a place and finds another mob already at work, it will leave at once. It is
partly from professional courtesy and partly for safety.

The professional thief lives in the underworld and has sympathetic and congenial relationships
there. Because the underworld is an exclusive society, it is necessary that the stranger be
identified before he is admitted. The language of the underworld is both an evidence of this
isolation of the underworld and also a means of identification. (ex. nailed=arrested,
shed=railroad station) What he knows about these mutual acquaintances will show whether he is
trustworthy.

A person can become a professional thief only if he is trained by those who are already
professionals. (Sutherland, 1937, 3-26)
His theory is based upon two major assumptions:

"(1) deviance occurs when people define a certain human situation as an

appropriate occasion for violating social norms or criminal laws and

(2) definitions of the situation are acquired through an individual’s history of

past experience, particularly in terms of past associations with others."
(Pfohl, 1994: 302). By doing so, people make their own subjective
definitions of their situation in life.

Sutherland did not mean that mere association with criminals would lead to
criminal behavior, which was often misunderstood by other critics, but he
viewed crime as a consequence of conflicting values. Individuals with an
excess of criminal definitions will be more susceptible to new criminal
definitions and that individual will be less receptive to anticriminal
definitions.

Criticism and Contemporary Views

Many criticized Sutherland's differential association theory; supporters argued that criticism often
resulted from misinterpretation of Sutherland's theory.

Donald R. Cressey argued persuasively that many of the critiques were simply "literary errors" or
misinterpretation on the part of the critics. For example, the theory was judged by critics to be
invalid because not everyone who had come into contact with criminals became criminal as a
result. This misinterprets the theory's proposition that criminal behavior is learned through
differential association (relative exposure to criminal and noncriminal patterns) not simply
through any contact with persons who have violated the law. (Akers: 1996:229)

However, Cressey also pointed out two major weaknesses of Sutherland's theory.

the first problem was that the concept of "definitions" in the theory was not precisely defined,
and the statement did not give good guidance on how to operationalize the ratio or "excess of
definitions" favorable to criminal behavior over definitions unfavorable to criminal behavior.
The second real problem was that it left the learning process unspecified. There is virtually no
clue in Sutherland's theory as to what in particular would be included in "all the mechanisms that
are involved in any of other learning (Akers: 1996:229-230)

Another important criticism argued that Sutherland's theory is a "cultural deviance" theory as a way of
showing that it made wrong presumptions about human behavior and the role of culture in deviant
behavior. Matsueda (1988) believed it "reduces his (Sutherland’s) theory to a caricature" and Bernard
objected to the way in which "the cultural deviance label has been applied to the original differential
association and social learning revision"(Bernard and Snipes, 1995: Vold and Bernard, 1986: 227-229)
But Akers denies this criticism as another misinterpretation of Sutherland's theory:
According to this critique, differential association/social learning theory rests on the assumption
that socialization is completely successful and that cultural variability is unlimited, cannot
explain individual differences in deviance within the same group and applies only to group
differences, has no way of explaining violation of norms to which the individual subscribes, and
proposes culture as the single cause of crime. I conclude that the usual attribution of cultural
deviance assumptions and explanation to differential association is based on misinterpretations.
(Akers: 1996:229)

Perhaps the most fundamental research problem involves identifying the

content of definitions favorable to crime. This is related to the criticism that
differential association theory cannot be tested empirically. (Matsueda,
1988: 296)

Warr and Stafford (1991:862) studied the mechanism by which delinquency

is socially transmitted. They compared the effect of peer’s attitude and effect
of peer’s behavior and found that delinquency stemmed rather from
behavior of peers than the consequence of attitudes acquired from peers.
This means that Sutherland’s assertion that attitude of peers is major factor
of delinquency is incomplete. The attitudes of adolescents indeed do influent
delinquency. "However, quite apart from the attitudes of adolescents and
those of their friends, the behavior of friends has a strong, independent
effect on adolescents’ behavior."

Differential association has been subject to a number of other criticisms.

"- is defective because it omits consideration of free will,

- is based on a psychology assuming rational deliberation,

- ignores the role of the victim,

- does not explain the origin of crime,

- does not define terms such as "systematic" and "excess",

- does not take "biological factors" into account,

- is of little or no value to "practical men",

- is not comprehensive enough because it is not interdisciplinary,

- is not allied closely enough with more general sociological theory and
research,
- is too comprehensive because it applies to noncriminals, and

- assumes that all persons have equal access to criminal and anticriminal
behavior patterns." (Sutherland, 1974: 82)

In terms of measurement problems, "The likelihood of deviant behavior

could be determined by calculating the difference between favorable and
unfavorable associations. Yet, as Sutherland recognized, the development of
such a formula would be extremely difficult. Although the importance of
associations is obviously influenced by such factors, the factors themselves
are difficult to reliably measure in any standardized fashion." (Pfohl,
1994:303)

Theoretical basis Labelling Theory on Crime

Labeling theory had its origins in Suicide, a book by French sociologist Émile Durkheim. He
found that crime is not so much a violation of a penal code as it is an act that outrages society.
He was the first to suggest that deviant labeling satisfies that function and satisfies society's need
to control the behavior.

As a contributor to American Pragmatism and later a member of the Chicago School, George
Herbert Mead posited that the self is socially constructed and reconstructed through the
interactions which each person has with the community. The labeling theory suggests that people
obtain labels from how others view their tendencies or behaviors. Each individual is aware of
how they are judged by others because he or she has attempted many different roles and
functions in social interactions and has been able to gauge the reactions of those present.

This theoretically builds a subjective conception of the self, but as others intrude into the reality
of that individual's life, this represents objective data which may require a re-evaluation of that
conception depending on the authoritativeness of the others' judgment. Family and friends may
judge differently from random strangers. More socially representative individuals such as police
officers or judges may be able to make more globally respected judgments. If deviance is a
failure to conform to the rules observed by most of the group, the reaction of the group is to label
the person as having offended against their social or moral norms of behavior. This is the power
of the group: to designate breaches of their rules as deviant and to treat the person differently
depending on the seriousness of the breach. The more differential the treatment, the more the
individual's self-image is affected.

Labeling theory concerns itself mostly not with the normal roles that define our lives, but with
those very special roles that society provides for deviant behavior, called deviant roles, stigmatic
roles, or social stigma. A social role is a set of expectations we have about a behavior. Social
roles are necessary for the organization and functioning of any society or group. We expect the
postman, for example, to adhere to certain fixed rules about how he does his job. "Deviance" for
a sociologist does not mean morally wrong, but rather behavior that is condemned by society.
Deviant behavior can include both criminal and non-criminal activities.
Investigators found that deviant roles powerfully affect how we perceive those who are assigned
those roles. They also affect how the deviant actor perceives himself and his relationship to
society. The deviant roles and the labels attached to them function as a form of social stigma.
Always inherent in the deviant role is the attribution of some form of "pollution" or difference
that marks the labeled person as different from others. Society uses these stigmatic roles to them
to control and limit deviant behavior: "If you proceed in this behavior, you will become a
member of that group of people."

Whether a breach of a given rule will be stigmatized will depend on the significance of the moral
or other tenet it represents. For example, adultery may be considered a breach of an informal rule
or it may be criminalized depending on the status of marriage, morality, and religion within the
community. In most Western countries, adultery is not a crime. Attaching the label "adulterer"
may have some unfortunate consequences but they are not generally severe. But in some Islamic
countries, zina is a crime and proof of extramarital activity may lead to severe consequences for
all concerned.

Stigma is usually the result of laws enacted against the behavior. Laws protecting slavery or
outlawing homosexuality, for instance, will over time form deviant roles connected with those
behaviors. Those who are assigned those roles will be seen as less human and reliable. Deviant
roles are the sources of negative stereotypes, which tend to support society's disapproval of the
behavior.

[edit] George Herbert Mead

One of the founders of social interactionism, George Herbert Mead focused on the internal
processes of how the mind constructs one's self-image. In Mind, Self, and Society (1934),[1] he
showed how infants come to know persons first and only later come to know things. According
to Mead, thought is both a social and pragmatic process, based on the model of two persons
discussing how to solve a problem. Our self-image is, in fact, constructed of ideas about what we
think others are thinking about us. While we make fun of those who visibly talk to themselves,
they have only failed to do what the rest of us do in keeping the internal conversation to
ourselves. Human behavior, Mead stated, is the result of meanings created by the social
interaction of conversation, both real and imaginary.

[edit] Frank Tannenbaum

Frank Tannenbaum is considered the grandfather of labeling theory. His Crime and Community
(1938),[2] describing the social interaction involved in crime, is considered a pivotal foundation
of modern criminology. While the criminal differs little or not at all from others in the original
impulse to first commit a crime, social interaction accounts for continued acts that develop a
pattern of interest to sociologists.

Tannenbaum first introduced the idea of 'tagging'.[3] While conducting his studies with delinquent
youth, he found that a negative tag or label often contributed to further involvement in delinquent
activities. This initial tagging may cause the individual to adopt it as part of their identity. The
crux of Tannenbaum's argument is that the greater the attention placed on this label, the more
likely the person is to identify themselves as the label.

" [7]

Howard Becker

While it was Lemert who introduced the key concepts of labeling theory, it was Howard Becker
who became their champion. He first began describing the process of how a person adopts a
deviant role in a study of dance musicians, with whom he once worked. He later studied the
identity formation of marijuana smokers. This study was the basis of his Outsiders published in
1963. This work became the manifesto of the labeling theory movement among sociologists. In
his opening, Becker writes:

"...social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance, and by applying
those roles 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 other of rules and
sanctions to an 'offender.' The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant
behavior is behavior that people so label."[8]

While society uses the stigmatic label to justify its condemnation, the deviant actor uses it to
justify his actions. He wrote: "To put a complex argument in a few words: instead of the deviant
motives leading to the deviant behavior, it is the other way around, the deviant behavior in time
produces the deviant motivation."[9]

Becker's immensely popular views were also subjected to a barrage of criticism, most of it
blaming him for neglecting the influence of other biological, genetic effects and personal
responsibility. In a later 1973 edition of his work, he answered his critics. He wrote that while
sociologists, while dedicated to studying society, are often careful not to look too closely.
Instead, he wrote: "I prefer to think of what we study as collective action. People act, as Mead
and Blumer have made clearest, together. They do what they do with an eye on what others have
done, are doing now, and may do in the future. One tries to fit his own line of action into the
actions of others, just as each of them likewise adjusts his own developing actions to what he
sees and expects others to do."[10]

Francis Cullen reported in 1984 that Becker was probably too generous with his critics. After 20
years, his views, far from being supplanted, have been corrected and absorbed into an expanded
"structuring perspective."[11]

Erving Goffman

Perhaps the most important contributor to labeling theory was Erving Goffman, President of the
American Sociological Association, and one of America's most cited sociologists. His most
popular books include The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,[14] Interaction Ritual, [15] and
Frame Analysis.[16]
His most important contribution to labeling theory, however, was Stigma: Notes on the
Management of Spoiled Identity published in 1963.[17] Unlike other authors who examined the
process of adopting a deviant identity, Goffman explored the ways people managed that identity
and controlled information about it.

Among Goffman's key insights were the following:

The modern nation state's heightened demand for normalcy. Today's stigmas are the result not so much
of ancient or religious prohibitions, but of a new demands for normalcy. He wrote: "The notion of the
'normal human being' may have its source in the medial approach to humanity, or in the tendency of
large-scale bureaucratic organizations such as the nation state, to treat all members in some respects as
equal. Whatever its origins, it seems to provide the basic imagery through which laymen currently
conceive themselves.[18]

Living in a divided world. Deviants divide their worlds into 1. forbidden places where discovery means
exposure and danger, 2. places where people of that kind are painfully tolerated, and 3. places where
one's kind is exposed without need to dissimulate or conceal. [19]

Dealing with others is fraught with great complexity and ambiguity. He wrote: "When normals and
stigmatized do in fact enter one another's immediate presence, especially when they attempt to
maintain a joint conversational encounter, there occurs one of the primal scenes of sociology; for, in
many cases, these moments will be the ones when the causes and effects of stigma will be directly
confronted by both sides....[20] "What are unthinking routines for normals can become management
problems for the discreditable....The person with a secret failing, then, must be alive to the social
situation as a scanner of possibilities, and is therefore likely to be alienated from the simpler world in
which those around them apparently dwell." [21]

Society's demands are filled with contradictions. On the one hand, a stigmatized person may be told that
he is no different from others. On the other hand, he must declare his status as "a resident alien who
stands for his group."[22] "It requires that the stigmatized individual cheerfully and unselfconsciously
accept himself as essentially the same as normals, while at the same time he voluntarily withholds
himself from those situations in which normals would find it difficult to give lip service to their similar
acceptance of him..." One has to convey the impression that the burden of the stigma is not too heavy
yet keep himself at the required distance. "A phantom acceptance is allowed to provide the base for a
phantom normalcy."[23]

Familiarity need not reduce contempt. In spite of the common belief that openness and exposure will
decrease stereotypes and repression, the opposite is true. "Thus, whether we interact with strangers or
intimates, we will still find that the fingertips of society have reached bluntly into the contact, even here
putting us in our place."[24]