UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

Critically discuss the two variations of the labelling theory

PH Dotyeni

3608 6355
Criminology

1
 Table of Contents
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 3
2. DEFINITION ........................................................................................................................................ 3
3. Interactionist approach ...................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Primary Deviance ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Secondary Deviance .................................................................................................................. 4
4. Social Response Approach .............................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Let us discuss labelling as a cause of crime .......................................................................... 5
4.2 The process of labelling ............................................................................................................ 5
4.3 A typology of deviants ............................................................................................................... 6
5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 7
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 8

2
1. Introduction

How do we explain crime? How do we explain the behavior of some people? This
assignment considers and discusses the two variations of the labelling theory. In
layman terms labelling is a theory which seeks to explain why people commit crime.
More scientifically, labeling theory is a theory that proposes that deviance is socially
constructed through reaction instead of action. According to this theory, no behavior is
inherently deviant on its own but is made deviant based on the reaction of others (Erin
Long-Crowell, 2013).

According to the Unisa study guide there are two variations of the labelling theory
namely:
 The interactionist approach, which focuses on self-identification and deals with
the thoughts of the deviant and,
 The social response approach, which focuses on the identity of individuals as
attributed to them by others and that deals with the opinions of others, especially
the social agents of control.

In terms of the labelling perspective, our view of crime and criminal justice falls short.
According to these various theories of labelling, crime is a social process. As such, it
involves different perceptions of what truly constitutes good or bad behavior. It can be
argued then, according to the labelling theory, that we are not inherently criminal.
Criminal behavior can be said to be an action of circumstance. . According to
proponents of the labelling perspective, crime is a social process. As such, it involves
different perceptions of what constitutes “good” or “bad”' behavior (or persons), and
those specific power relationships that determine what (or who) is deemed to be
“devian”' or an offender. Crime is not an ``objective'' phenomenon ± instead, it is an
outcome of specific types of human interaction between the offender, the victim and the
officials of the criminal justice system (White & Haines, 2004:78). Let us explore this
theory.

2. DEFINITION

RECIDIVISM Recidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior

after they have either experienced negative consequences of that
behavior, or have been trained to extinguish that behavior. It is also
used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are
rearrested for a similar offense.

DEVIANCE In sociology, deviance describes an action or behavior that violates

social norms, including a formally enacted rule, as well as informal
violations of social norms. Deviance is a behavioural disposition
that is not in conformity with an institutionalized set-up or code of
conduct

3
3. Interactionist approach

Lemert's (2002) theory can be described as the “model” of the Interactionist approach.
According to him it can be assumed that Individuals enter into a criminal career after
they have been labelled, especially if the labelling is done by people important to the
individual. Labelling creates a stigma and influences an individual's self-image. Labelled
individuals see themselves as deviant and will increasingly commit criminal behavior. In
his research, Lemert explains his theory by focusing on a process wherein juveniles
often describe themselves as delinquent. This, according to him, is a phenomenon
which partly has a direct link to the juvenile’s social class and interaction with formal
decision-making powers. To this end, Lemert is very critical of rehabilitation suggesting
that such processes only lead and encourage recidivism.

White & Haines (2004) indicate that Lemert developed two concepts of deviance which
are referred to as:
 Primary deviance and
 Secondary deviance

3.1 Primary Deviance

When we define primary deviance we are simply referring to the initial deviant behavior
of a person. To give example to primary deviance we can cite incidents of a drunk driver
who does such an illegal act without being caught or thinking he won’t be caught. In this
instance, we do not consider the person who commits such an act as “bad” or criminal
in the strictest sense. More so, Lemert does not attach much value to primary deviance
because the persons self image is not damaged and there is no real change in the
identity of the person. The act can even be considered a passing event (Walsh & Ellis,
2007:127).

3.2 Secondary Deviance

On the other hand, secondary deviance can be considered an incidence of repeat
offence. In this instance, the offender can be considered to already be stigmatized and
labelled as a bad person and as such shall commit an illegal act for the second or third
time. Equally so, some repeat offenders refuse to accept being labelled and downplay
the seriousness of their actions (Walsh & Ellis, 2007). Now, the labelling perspective
stresses the idea that the process of labelling is not a state of being but rather an
outcome of social interaction.

4. Social Response Approach

More recent statements on labelling express very little interest in the causes of
delinquency and crime. More emphasis is rather placed on the response to behavior
and this approach is what we consider as the social response perspective. Howard

4
Becker whose research was published in 1963 studies the sociology in deviance and
gives interesting contributions in this regard (Tierney, 2006:142). Becker provides three
segments of this labelling approach namely:

 Labelling as a cause of crime

 The process of labelling
 The typology of deviants

4.1 Let us discuss labelling as a cause of crime

Becker, in developing his theory, presupposes that some rules carry the force of
legislation while others carry less weight or apply within a context of marginal
subcultures. To this end he offers oppressive laws during the years of Apartheid South
Africa such as the carrying of pass documents etc. In this example Becker explores the
possibility that a person’s choices and even rights can be limited by society and as a
result of such limitation, can lead a person to become a deviant in that society.
Ultimately what his theory suggests is that such persons would then be labelled as
criminals (Tierney, 2006:142).

A lot more example can be offered to support the theory of Becker. The complex iconic
political legacy of the anti-apartheid leader, Mr Nelson Mandela, can serve as a clear
example of how labelling can be a cause of crime. As is common knowledge, during the
1980’s Mr Mandela was branded as a terrorist by the West and South Africa for his role
in the political violence experienced in South Africa during the 1950’s and 60’s
(Boehmer, 2005). Here we can clearly see that the limitations of society on one
particular race on the basis of their skin color led to labelling and as a result to the
commission of crime itself.

4.2 The process of labelling

In Becker’s study he explained how a person is labelled. He defines deviant behavior as
a social product created by society. He further states that juvenile or not, labelling will
depend on the reaction of others to the act committed and not necessarily the nature of
the act. Becker states that a person acquires the label of deviance in a series of phases
which result in the deviant achieving master status (a status considered by others most
significant).

These are the phases:

First phase A person carries out a deviant action (even if not consciously). The
offender may have no idea that others will regard the action as
deviant.

Second phase The person is caught, which puts him or her in a different light and
others then attach a new status or label to the person. It is
assumed that the particular person will continue with similar

5
 behavior, simply because people expect offenders to commit other
crimes as well. The stigma (negative label) thus becomes
generalized.

Third phase The deviant behavior reaches master status. Regardless of other
good qualities, the person is labelled as deviant and this carries the
greater weight in the minds of others. This leads to the self-fulfilling
prophecy (Reid, 2003:183): as a result of labelling, the person is
forced to break ties with conventional (law-abiding) groups and to
turn to illegal activities in order to make a living. Deviant behavior
is, therefore, the result of other people's reactions (Bartollas,
2006:170).

Final phase The person joins an organized deviant group where each member
learns to rationalize deviant (criminal) activities. They find reasons
to continue such activities.

4.3 A typology of deviants

Becker (Williams & McShane, 2004:145) distinguishes three types of deviants, and this
typology helps explain labelling:
 The pure deviant engages in norm-breaking behavior which is regarded as such
by society (e.g. the burglar who is caught red-handed, followed by arrest, a
hearing and conviction). Such a person gets what he or she deserves.

 The falsely accused deviant is a person who is, in fact, innocent, but who may
sometimes be imprisoned. The impact of conviction and prison experiences lead
to a negative self-image. The life of a person who has been falsely accused
changes just as dramatically as the life of the pure deviant, purely as a result of
the process of labelling.
 The secret deviant is a person who contravenes social norms, but his or her
behavior goes undetected. No negative reaction follows. This is the category that
once again illustrates the power of social response, because there are no
negative consequences (i.e. for the deviant).

6
5. Conclusion

Two variations may be identified in labelling theories. The first is the concept of social
response. In this component the concern is with the different responses to deviant
behavior and focuses on the meanings that others attach to such deviant behavior
(Tierney, 2006:142).

The second fundamental concept is secondary deviance as developed by Lemert

(2002), which deals with the meaning of a label as such and the effect of such a label
on the particular person. Becker's contribution clearly illustrates why labelling theories
are also classified as process theories. The process whereby a person becomes an
outsider is described in four phases. In his typology of deviants, the emphasis is on the
falsely accused and the secret deviant, because these two types effectively illustrate the
arguments of labelling.

Now, we asked the question how we explain crime. Labelling's most important
contribution is that it has forced criminologists to question the middle-class values that
they use to describe deviant behavior and criminality. Labelling takes a critical view of
the criminal justice system and makes it clear that offenders are not objects but people,
people who should be dealt with humanely (Tierney, 2006).

During the months of March until June 2020 the United States of America experienced
some of the largest anti police protests. These protests directly linked to the black lives
matter movements which sought to bring to light police brutality against black men. Most
of these black men were shot and killed by law enforcement officers on the basis that
they were deviant to America’s laws. The protests exposed that not only was the
behavior of law enforcement officers unjust, but that there existed institutional racism
which oppressed and suppressed the choices of black men when they find themselves
in conflict with law enforcement officers. In this example, an entire nation of black men
was labelled to be criminals and violent by a particular group of law enforcers.

For me it is very true when Becker suggests that labelling creates more crime. As in the
case of black men in the United States of America, labelling not only creates a more
deviant society but has demonstrated to the entire world that unjust laws that unjustly
impede on peoples choices and natural rights are bound to create deviants. The very
act of labelling creates more criminals and ultimately more crime.

7
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Wellford, C., 1975. Labelling theory and criminology: An assessment. Social

Problems, 22(3), pp.332-345.
2. "Labeling Theory and Crime: Stigma & Retrospective and Projective Labeling."
Study.com. March 28, 2013. https://study.com/academy/lesson/labeling-theory-and-
crime-stigma-retrospective-and-projective-labeling.html.
3. Tierney, S.M., Gonzales-Ojeda, T. and Wcislo, W.T., 2008. Nesting biology and social
behavior of Xenochlora bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Augochlorini) from Perú. Journal
of the Kansas Entomological Society, 81(1), pp.61-72.
4. Boehmer, E., 2005. Postcolonial terrorist The example of Nelson
Mandela. Parallax, 11(4), pp.46-55.