THE NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE

UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Project
On
LABELLING THEORY
submitted by:
Aniket Nighojkar
Roll Number: 2020 BALLB 12
Enrolment Number:
1st Semester
B. A. LL. B. (Hons.)

submitted to
Prof. (Dr.) Tapan R. Mohanty
Professor (Sociology of Law / Socio Legal Studies)
PH.D., M.A., M.PHIL., UGC-JRF, NET

Date of submission:
 LITERATURE REVIEW

OBJECTIVES

 To study about labeling theory

 To study about the various thoughts of sociologists like George Herbert Mead,
Thomas Scheff, Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, Howard Becker, Erving Goffman
and David Matza.
 To critically analyze all the ideas and thoughts and draft a conclusion.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Labelling theory entails a policy of non-intervention meaning nothing to be done as it can

make situation worse. An examination of the labelling theory reveals that regarded as a
theory, it contains weakness and its very foundation is fragile. To build a plan to bring action
on such theory would prove to be hazardous activity. If we follow a policy of non-
intervention it may not produce suitable outcomes, in short, the problem may be aggravated
more than it was previously. In many ways, criminal behaviour gives rise to social anguishes
and eradication of this must be our aim. Labelling theory adversely affects the behavior of the
person so labeled to the extent that he thinks himself to be quite different to others and
sometimes starts inhibiting behavioral entities that he himself wasn’t holding sometimes
earlier.
The project shall study the problem with labelling with reference to various views as was
reflected through works of various sociologists.

HYPOTHESIS

Labelling theory (also referred to as societal reaction theory) analyses how social groups create and
apply definitions for deviant behaviour. The approach examines how deviant labels emerge, how
some social groups develop the power to impose deviant labels onto selected others, and the
consequences of being labeled deviant.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

WORK PLAN

METHOD OF STUDY

The present research work is based on doctrinal method of data collection.

 Table of Contents

Introduction...............................................................................................................3
Different sociologist’s thoughts................................................................................6
Labeling...................................................................................................................10
Deviant behavior.....................................................................................................12
Deviant behavior with reference with labeling theory:...........................................13
EFFECTS OF LABELING.....................................................................................14
Conclusion...............................................................................................................15
 INTRODUCTION

Labelling theory gives a different sociological approach that emphasizes on the role of social
labeling in the enhancing of the development of crime and deviance. According to the theory,
it is assumed that even though one may have acted in a deviant manner for some reason or the
other initially, once associated with such a deviance or once their names are blemished with
their deviant behavior, new troubles arise for them. These arise mainly from the cynical
reception, reactions to the deviance by oneself as well as the others in society, majorly the
stereotyping.

The stigma further leads to too many problems, eventually promulgating the harboring of
such a deviant and criminal behavior. Lemert (1967) stated, “Deviant behavior can become
means of defense, attack, or adaptation to the problems created by deviant labeling.” Thus,
being labelled as an offender further fosters the ideology or stabilizes the involvement in acts
of deviance, consequently forming a certain behavioral pattern.

Howard Becker (1963) further added about labeling, stating, “Deviancy is not a quality of the
act a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and
sanctions to an ‘offender’. Deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.” What needs to
be inferred from the aforementioned lines is that deviant is basically something that is
perceived so, by the people, and not something that is done by an individual. Basically, the
common aspect between all the deviant acts is that they are perceived as “deviant” by others.

The prime focus of this perspective is the interaction between the individuals of the society,
the prime constituents, which forms its meaning. The labeling of certain behavioral aspects as
deviant and criminal further promulgates the concept of labeling theory in our society. It is
widely believed that such ostracizing helps in curbing the criminal activities.

Well, to some extent it is effective but it also encourages more indulging in these activities,
given the labeling associated with the ones who commit deviance. The repercussions affect
the society on a much larger scale than to have a positive effect. The corrective measures
require empathy and placid minds on the part of the individuals of the society so that they
would perceive the genuine feelings of the culprits.
The rehabilitation process is one complex regime which has a fine line of difference to take
care of. As the people treat them in a harsh manner, due to their labeling as “criminals” it
further inclines them towards the criminological sphere of the society. As the disparity
consolidates in the society, it becomes more conducive for deviant acts to proliferate and
influence more and more. The constant labeling leads the person to believe what he/she is
labelled. The notion of social reception and the negative reaction towards deviant acts forms
an integral part of the labeling theory.

There is a dichotomy, though. The rules are made by the people, the public reception towards
which determines whether an act is deviant or not. Further, it’s not mainly the nature of the
act but the way in which the offender is treated which eventually turns out to be a promoting
factor of an ideology of deviance and criminology. For instance, killing a person has various
connotations associated with it. If a combatant of armed forces kills an infiltrator, he is hailed
for the same. However, if the same is done by a private individual, he may be perceived as a
murderer and would be further tried for the same. The social perception plays a massive role
in the promulgation of the labeling theory. A same act, when received by people, in a distinct
manner, can result into negatively influencing an individual for something devious. The
societal response of deviance stigmatizes the offender, further exacerbating the situation.
Thus, labeling theory is based on the aspect of the reception of one’s acts by the people of the
society.

This is not a new concept or theory to mankind. Since time immemorial, people have been
labeling individuals and things to distinguish them and avoid any sort of confusion. However
this leads to a person believing themselves to be inferior to others. Mainly this practice is
prevalent because of the habit of the people to patronize others, rather label oneself as
superior to others. Labeling individuals acts as a driving force or an impetus for people to act
in a specific manner, the manner in which they are being labelled as. It makes them feel as if
they have done something or have not done something as per the norms of the society, further
leading them to oblivion. Ramifications of the labeling theory drastically affect the mindset
of an individual, not just a deviant individual per se.
 Different sociologist’s thoughts.

GEORGE HERBERT MEAD

George Herbert Mead, one of the founders of the social interactionism, emphasized on the
minor processes as to how our brain creates one’s self-image. In Mind, Self and Society, it
was showcased by him how the infants initially learn about persons and about the things
afterwards. According to Mead, thought is a pragmatic as well as a social act as it constitutes
of what two or more people cogitate about, to deal with a problem. Mead’s prime focus has
been on the concept of “self”, the facet of one’s personality, concerning self-awareness and
self-image. One always gets affected by how people perceive of him, in public. Our self-
image conforms out of what people think about us, entirely derived from other’s perceptions.
Human behavior is a consequence of the various connotations drawn from the social
interaction of conversation, both actual and virtual, Mead believed. While we ridicule those
who tend to talk to themselves, the reality is that they have been unable to do the act of
keeping things to themselves inside. These traits develop as one comes across the different
experiences with the individuals in society. So one can easily deduce that the human behavior
is subjected to frequent transition, which when exposed to a particular kind of surroundings,
tends to get morphed in accordance with it.

THOMAS SCHEFF

The book Being Mentally III: A Sociological Theory (1966) was released by Thomas J.
Scheff, Professor, Emeritus, Dept. of Sociology, and UCSB. Society has perceptions of
individuals with mental illness, according to Scheff. He said that through normal social
interaction, everyone in society learns the stereotyped image of mental illness. People have
been learning from infancy to use terms such as "insane," "loony," "nuts," and associating
them with troubled behaviors. The press also adds by associating them with violent crimes to
this bias against mentally ill patients. Scheff thinks that mental illness is a label provided to a
individual who has a conduct that is distant from society's social norms and is treated in
society as a social deviance. Once a individual gets a "mentally ill person" label, he / she gets
from society a set of standardized answers that are usually negative in nature.
These social reactions compel the individual to assume the position of a "mentally ill
individual" as he / she begins to internalize the same. When the individual assumes the
position as her / his main identity of being mentally ill, he / she becomes a stable mental ill
person. Therefore, chronic mental illness is a social role and the social response is the most
determinant of one's entry into this chronically ill role. According to Scheff, a mentally ill
person's hospitalization further strengthens this social position and forces her / him to assume
this position as her / his self-perception. Once the individual has been institutionalized for
mental disorder, he / she was openly marked as "insane" and compelled to join a deviant
social group. It then becomes hard for a deviant individual to return to their former level of
functioning as the' patient' status creates unfavorable self and other evaluations.

FRANK TANNENBAUM

Frank Tannenbaum is regarded as the grandfather of the theory of labeling. His Crime and
Community (1938), describing crime-related social interaction, is regarded a key foundation
of contemporary criminology. While the criminal in the initial impulse to commit a crime
first varies little or not at all from others, social interaction accounts for continuing acts that
create a pattern of concern for sociologists.

The concept of' tagging' was first introduced by Tannenbaum. While conducting his research
with delinquent youth, he discovered that a adverse tag or label often led to further
participation in criminal operations. This original tagging may cause it to be adopted by the
person as part of their identity. The crux of Tannenbaum's argument is that the more attention
this label places, the more probably the individual is to identify as the label.

Kerry Townsend writes about the revolution in criminology triggered by Tannenbaum's

work: "The roots of the theoretical model of Frank Tannenbaum, known as the' dramatization
of evil' or labeling theory, surfaces in the mid- to late-thirties. At this moment, the' New Deal
' law had not defeated the woes of the Great Depression and, although dwindling,
immigration to the United States continued. The development of the theory and its present
practical and theoretical implementation provide a strong basis for ongoing popularity.
EDWIN LEMERT

The notion of "secondary deviance" was launched by sociologist Edwin Lemert (1951). The
primary deviance is the overt behavior-related experience, say drug addiction and its practical
requirements and implications. Secondary deviation is the role developed to address the
condemnation of a person's conduct by society.

Lemert saw, together with other sociologists of his moment, how all deviant acts are social
acts, a result of society's collaboration. Lemert noted a very strong and subtle force at job in
his study of drug addiction. In addition to the physical addiction to the drug and all the
financial and social disruptions it caused, there was an intensely intellectual method at work
regarding one's own identity and the rationale for conduct: "I do these stuff because I am that
way."

Some subjective and personal motives could lead an individual to drink or shoplift first. But
the activity itself informs us little about the self-image of the person or his relation to the
activity. Lemert writes: "His actions are repeated and subjectively structured and converted
into active positions and become the social criteria for assigning status..... When an individual
starts to employ his or her deviant behavior or role as a means of defending, attacking, or
adjusting to the overt and covert issues generated by the consequent social response to him,
his deviation is secondary"

HOWARD BECKER

While the main ideas of labeling theory were introduced by Lemert, it was Howard Becker
who became their successor. He first started to describe how a individual takes on a deviant
position in a research of dance musicians that he once worked with. He subsequently
researched marijuana smokers ' identity formation. This research was the foundation of his
1963 published Outsiders. This work became the manifestation among sociologists of the
labeling theory motion. Becker writes in his opening: “... social organizations generate
deviance by creating laws whose infringement generates deviance and applying those rules to
individuals and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality
of the act committed by the person, but rather a consequence of the application to an
"offender" by other rules and sanctions. The deviant is one to whom that label has been
successfully applied; deviant behavior is a behavior so labeled by people. While society
utilizes the stigmatic label to justify its rejection, it is used to justify its behavior by the
deviant actor. He wrote: "In a few phrases, to put a complicated argument: the deviant
behavior in time generates the deviant motive instead of the deviant motives leading to the
deviant behavior."

Becker's extremely common opinions were also subjected to a critical barrage, most of which
accused him of neglecting the impact of other biological, genetic and personal responsibility
impacts. He responded to his critics in a subsequent edition of his job in 1973. He wrote that
sociologists are often cautious not to look too carefully while they are devoted to studying
society. Instead, he wrote: "I prefer to think of what we study as collective action. People
behave as Mead and Blumer have made it clearer together. They do what they do with an eye
to what others have accomplished, are doing now, and can do in the future. One attempts to
fit one's own line of action into others ' behavior, just as each of them also adjusts their own
evolving behavior to what they see and expect. His opinions have been fixed and absorbed
into an extended "structuring view" after 20 years, far from being replaced.

DAVID MATZA

The sociologist David Matza provides the most vivid and graphic account of the process of
assuming a deviant position in On Becoming Deviant (1969). Authority acts in banning a
banned conduct can have two impacts, maintaining most of the behaviour, but also providing
fresh possibilities to create deviant identities. He claims the "affinity" idea does little to
explain the behavioral commitment. "Instead, it can be considered as a natural biographical
inclination born out of private and social conditions that suggest but hardly compel a
direction or movement." The creation of a fresh identity is what provides strength to that
motion. He writes: "To be cast as a thief, as a prostitute, or more generally, as a deviant, is to
further compound and accelerate the process of becoming that very thing.... “In stunned
discovery, the topic now concretely knows that there are severe individuals who are really
building their life around his activities— stopping him, correcting him, devoting themselves
to him. They hold records of his lifetime, and even create theories of how he got that way....
Pressed by such a display, the topic may start adding significance and gravity to its deviant
operations. But he may do so in a manner not designed specifically by government officials.
 Labeling

Describing someone in a short phrase or in a word is known as labelling. For understanding

the deviant behavior of society labelling theory is a theory in sociology which can really help
you in identification of the same.

Labelling is based on the idea of reality which is central to the field of sociology and is linked
to one of the most important perspectives of the society. Sociologists focused on the process
of involving interactions with society as a very important and relevant feature for the
development of the societies.

Labelling states that people come to identify and behave in the same way as other people
often label them. For example- In the situations of criminal and deviance character shown by
people.

Labeling any person anything can cause others to treat him in the same way as he was
labeled. It may be positive or negative and the cause of these types of treatment can cause the
persons behavior more negative or positive. If a person is labeled as criminal the society will
treat him in the very same way and this can turn his behavior more negatively and rashly. On
the other hand if a person is a social worker and he is labeled as a very respective person in
the society he/she will treated in the same way. This can turn his behavior towards more
positiveness and it will encourage him to help out more and more people in the society.

With the help of a reference group we can really relate labelling with the society. For
example- the labels white and black are related to white people and black people. The labels
young and old are related to young people and old people.

A better example of labeling is the business of prostitution. For financial gain sexual
relationship takes place between man and woman. Once a person is labeled as a prostitute
he/she can never get rid of this label. Despite that they can quit that business but the label will
always remain on their head.

Some more examples of labelling are:

1: CRIMINAL- He/ She may be a murderer or was engaged in any other criminal activities
he/ she will always be a criminal.

2: Alcoholism and drug adductor: Once a person is considered as a adductor in a society he/
she will always remains the same for others.

3: Prostitution and etc.

 Deviant behavior

We first need to know what deviance means to comprehend deviant behaviour.

Deviance is actions or any form of conduct that does not fit as appropriate when compared to
what is societally suitable behavior.

Deviant behavior can also be described as something that does not comply with different
institutions ' code of conduct.

Deviance is something performed that is not aligned with the society's social norms.

Someone who does such stuff or actions is referred to as deviant behaviour.

Social norms differ from culture to culture. In any other culture, something that is deviant in
one culture may not be regarded deviant.

Deviance is usually split into two kinds of activity: the first is crime, violating a officially
enacted law. Formal deviance examples are: theft, rape, theft.

The second form of deviance is infringement of informal social norms known as informal
deviance. Generally speaking, we are presently talking about formal deviance. Norms are
mostly cultural contingent, like deviance.

Violation of social norms results in forced social sanction.

Labeling theory describes how individuals are subjected to stereotypes, judging and defining
(labeling) someone's behavior as deviant or not, as invention, choice, manipulation of views
that define behavior in a adverse manner, and choice of individuals in those categories.

Deviance is not defined as a wrong act not in compliance with set norms and standards but
rather a consequence of the application of other’s rules and sanctions to an so called
“offender”.

The deviant is the one so labeled as offender by the society based on that the so person didn’t
comply with the norms set by the society, it’s really surprising how a single act not
accordingly appropriate in eyes of the peoples setting standards for what is an appropriate
behavior or what is the proper way to act in society leads to peoples being labeled as deviant.
Any conduct becomes deviant or becomes known as deviant only if it is defined at the
particular place by particular individuals.

It is also worth noting that in labeling someone deviant, often wrongly identifying or labeling
someone as deviant, society is not always correct.

Definition of deviant behavior is something that could be completely acceptable in another

group very rapidly changing something that could be called deviant behavior in one group.
 Deviant behavior with reference with labeling theory:

Labeling theory conveys the concept that when two things happen, people become deviant:

1. An person is provided a label.

2. By inhibiting the activities, behaviors connected with the label thus provided, the person
adopts the label.

Labeling theory informs how a person adopting a deviant behavior sometimes results from
the labeling.

Behavior that breaks standards. Deviating conduct is conduct that violates cultural models '
normative laws, understandings, or aspirations. This is the term's most popular use and the
meaning in which it will be used here. In this context, crime is the prototype of deviance, and
crime has been overwhelmingly worried with hypothesis and study into deviant behaviour.
Regulatory rules, however, are intrinsic in the essence of all social systems, be they buddy
organizations, committed pairs, relatives, job teams, mills, or domestic communities. Legal
norms are then only one form of norm whose infringement represents deviant behavior.
 EFFECTS OF LABELING

Labeling is not a fresh idea for humanity, individuals have marked stuff from the previous
centuries in order to make it simple for them to distinguish between things and prevent
confusion.

But now the thing has begun to grip the human society nowadays human beings are marked
as well.

During college time, the first type of labeling an employee suffers. Peer labels, teachers etc.

This is usually ignored as people believe it is a insignificant question, but branding has
demonstrated to have long-term impacts on the conduct of an individual.

Labeling leads to the inferiority of an person thinking himself. It has been quite a common
practice to label individuals, individuals generally label someone superior just for pleasure.
They believe they'd be superior by labeling individuals. People's mentality is that they always
want to be called superior before a group of individuals.

For this, most of them create a particular class of individuals within a community, these are
individuals who want to dominate others, it's been a jungle principle that anyone who reveals
himself to be strong jungle laws, in the event of animals, what they do is if someone stronger
than them goes in between trying to demonstrate him to be inferior, they understand they're
not superior to them, but they still mark individuals.

In the person thinking that he chose or did not do something that is in accordance with the
cultural standards laid and thought, the labeling of any person outcomes. This causes the
person to begin to act like the mark provided to him, the conduct of the person begins to alter.

Labeling leads to changes in a person’s behavior, firstly small changes take place and later
significant changes starts to show in the behavior of the individual.

The title once given is really hard to remove from the minds of the infant so given the label.

Naming Theory is commonly designed for a people's characters inside society, concentrating
on the marks society has put on them—more often than not on the grounds that they don't fit
into the run of the mill standard. Marking is a procedure of giving an individual a title they
have not decided for themselves. This title conveys with it assumptions, attributes, and
qualities "about" the Person. Naming could have either negative or positive outcomes; yet
normally marking

Hypothesis is related with negative results, and typically spins around aberrance. Names

Can begin during childbirth and can keep going for a whole lifetime.

When a child is marked as kid or young lady desires are established. These desires will figure
out what shading garments it will wear, the sort of toys that it will play with, and what kind
of conduct is viewed as adequate. From that point, assumptions are drawn on a baby due to
their "race," guardians' financial status, spot of birth, and Their by and large physical
wellbeing and appearance, which will later decides the sorts of assets They will approach.
This procedure of marking can have an "impact on an individual's social personality" that
they will convey with them for a lifetime".
 Conclusion

Labeling theory entails a policy of non-intervention meaning nothing to be done as it can

make situation worse. An examination of the labeling theory reveals that regarded as a
theory, it contains weakness and its very foundation is fragile.
To build a plan to bring action on such theory would prove to be hazardous activity.
If we follow a policy of non-intervention it may not produce suitable outcomes, in short, the
problem may be aggravated more than it was previously.
Labeling someone increases the chance of them being deviant even after the labeling has
stopped, they start to believe that they are like that and the reason they are being labelled is
that they should accept it too. The way deviance works has been explained by various
sociologists of the time and have provided evidence for the same.