Labelling Theory.

Interactionist Approach-
According to the interactionist theory men enter into social intercourse with fellow men through
symbols such as language.
Small scale interactions that occur in it can enable social action to take place effectively.
Interactionism is a micro perspective because it looks at small scale - face to face relationships
(phenomenon) unlike the positivist theories (macro theories) which adopt a holistic approach to
the study of society.
Labeling Theory.
Labeling theory was developed by sociologists during the 1960s.
Key theorists are George Herbert Mead, Thomas Scheff, Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert,
Howard Becker, Albert Memmi, Erving Goffman.
Labeling theory provides a distinctively sociological approach that focuses on the role of social
labeling in the development of crime and deviance.
What is labelling.
This means that certain negative qualities are ascribed to people.
Classifying, marking a certain individual.
The labeling may come from those closest in the individual's environment, from other social
groups and finally from within the individual himself.
It may come significant/ important others for example friends, family, partners, relatives.
The labelling theory suggest that the behavior of an individual or their self-identity can be
determined or affected by terms used to describe and classify them.
Labeling theory holds that on some occasion everybody shows behavior that can be called
deviant.
Essentially, two effects come from labeling.
On the one hand, an individual's social situation is changed; on the other, his self-image.
He/she begins to conceive of himself as a deviant.
He/she begins to think of, consider, regard, and perceive him/herself as a deviant.
The two factors together give rise to deviant careers in which the individual little by little enters
a deviant way of life.
The theory assumes that although deviant behavior can initially stem from various causes and
conditions, once individuals have been labeled or defined as deviants, they often face new
problems that stem from the reactions of self and others to negative stereotypes (stigma) that are
attached to the deviant label (Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1967).
Thus, being labeled or defined by others as a criminal offender may trigger processes that tend to
reinforce or stabilize involvement in crime and deviance.
Finally, he has developed a deviant identity.
He has become what people have said he was from the start.
Deviant behavior is behavior which is so labeled. According to the labeling theorists, what
constitutes deviant behavior is fundamentally the reaction of the environment.
No reaction, no deviant behavior.
Labeling theory proceeds on the assumption that in actual fact no people exist who are motivated
to behave deviantly or who possess certain qualities which drive them to do so.
In this regard, this theory views deviance as socially constructed.
This theory is associated with the concepts of self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping.
The theory suggest that deviance is not inherent or natural but it is socially constructed.
According to Mead, the self is socially constructed and reconstructed through the interactions
which each person has with the community.
The theory suggests that labels are obtained from how significant others view one’s tendencies or
behaviors.
Each person is aware of how they are judged by others.
Family and friends may judge differently from random strangers.
"Deviance" for a sociologist does not mean morally wrong, but rather behavior that is
condemned by society.
When the individual is treated as having certain qualities which are attached to the stigma
conveyed through labeling, his identity is transformed and becomes deviant.
The labeling process therefore gives rise to a "self-fulfilling prophecy"
Deviant behavior can include both criminal and non-criminal activities.
Through the labeling and self-fulfilling prophecy human beings (men) are able to define
situations and defined situations often come to pass.
Labelling has fulfilling effects when it comes from significant others and when it comes from
general people it might not have an effect.
Thus deviance is a social construct.
Labeling is viewed as a process of allocating a name, term or defining a situation in a particular
way e.g. thief, prostitute, etc.
A self-fulfilling prophecy is the resultant effect.
Haralambos and Holborne define self-fulfilling prophecy as a prediction that comes to pass or a
confirmation of a label by the victim who has been successfully labeled. Interactionist
sociologists say that a label that has a self-fulfilling prophecy effect is one that comes from a
significant other (Mead, 1967).
By that definition, norm-violating behavior which is not labeled as such is not deviant.
Labeling entails an altered social situation and a transformed self-image.
Together, these factors give rise to deviant careers with ever-increasing involvement in deviant
behavior.
Weaknesses.
.Since the deviant's behavior is caused by the reaction of his environment, he is without
responsibility for it.
Actually, the societal environment is the villain of the piece as it is in a sense responsible for his
behavior.
Furthermore" no steps should be taken because of the behavior since they would only make
matters worse.
Media.

For an act to be ‘criminal’ (as distinct from harmful, immoral, anti-social, etc.) it has to be
labelled as such.

The media play an important role in labelling certain individuals in society.

The use their “power” to define deviant behaviors.

The media can also be used to tackle deviance but according to this theory, nothing should be
done because interventions will only make things worse.
Negative stereotypes of criminal offenders are manifested in the mainstream culture in various
ways, for example in films, books, mass media, and even everyday language (Becker, 1963;
Goffman, 1963; Scheff, 1966).

Minorities and impoverished individuals may be more vulnerable to informal labeling as well.

Due to stereotypes that associate criminality with racial minorities and impoverishment,
members of such groups may be more likely to be associated with criminal stigma.

aBernburg and Krohn (2003) have suggested that formal labeling may be more likely to trigger
stigma for members of racial minorities and the impoverished, because such groups are already
associated with stigma to begin with.