Gitarattan International Business School

Sociology
BA LLB 02
L-34
Date of releasing: 26/03/2020
Date of submission: 27/03/2020 (8 AM)

Labelling theory
A type of symbolic interaction, labelling theory concerns the meanings people derive from
one another's labels, symbols, actions, and reactions. This theory holds that behaviours are
deviant only when society labels them as deviant. As such, conforming members of society,
who interpret certain behaviours as deviant and then attach this label to individuals,
determine the distinction between deviance and non‐deviance. Labelling theory questions
who applies what label to whom, why they do this, and what happens as a result of this
labelling.
Powerful individuals within society—politicians, judges, police officers, medical doctors, and
so forth—typically impose the most significant labels. Labelled persons may include drug
addicts, alcoholics, criminals, delinquents, prostitutes, sex offenders, retarded people, and
psychiatric patients, to mention a few. The consequences of being labelled as deviant can be
far‐reaching.
Social research indicates that those who have negative labels usually have lower self‐images,
are more likely to reject themselves, and may even act more deviantly as a result of the label.
Unfortunately, people who accept the labelling of others—be it correct or incorrect—have a
difficult time changing their opinions of the labelled person, even in light of evidence to the
contrary.
William Chambliss in 1973 conducted a classic study into the effects of labelling. His two
groups of white, male, high‐school students were both frequently involved in delinquent acts
of theft, vandalism, drinking, and truancy. The police never arrested the members of one
group, which Chambliss labelled the “Saints,” but the police did have frequent run‐ins with
members of the other group, which he labelled the “Roughnecks.” The boys in the Saints
came from respectable families, had good reputations and grades in school, and were careful
not to get caught when breaking the law. By being polite, cordial, and apologetic whenever
confronted by the police, the Saints escaped labelling themselves as “deviants.” In contrast,
the Roughnecks came from families of lower socioeconomic status, had poor reputations and
grades in school, and were not careful about being caught when breaking the law. By being
hostile and insolent whenever confronted by the police, the Roughnecks were easily labelled
by others and themselves as “deviants.” In other words, while both groups committed crimes,
the Saints were perceived to be “good” because of their polite behaviour (which was
attributed to their upper‐class backgrounds) and the Roughnecks were seen as “bad” because
of their insolent behaviour (which was attributed to their lower‐class backgrounds). As a
result, the police always took action against the Roughnecks, but never against the Saints.
Proponents of labelling theory support the theory's emphasis on the role that the attitudes and
reactions of others, not deviant acts per se, have on the development of deviance. Critics of
labelling theory indicate that the theory only applies to a small number of deviants, because
such people are actually caught and labelled as deviants. Critics also argue that the concepts
in the theory are unclear and thus difficult to test scientifically.
Functionalist theories of deviance: Going back at least to Herbert Spencer (and maybe even
to Comte), society has been compared to a biological organism. Just as all parts of the body
(or almost all) contribute to the overall health of the whole organism, so the basic institutions
and patterns of society contribute to the functioning of the whole society.
What do the functionalists do with deviant behaviour?
I. Emile Durkheim. You may already be familiar with the background of Durkheim's
sociology. He was educated during the second republic, a time of more or less democratic
rule in France after a long period of alternating instability, kings and emperors, and he was
intensely interested in how to maintain social cohesion and stability under a democratic
system. Ultimately, he became convinced of the importance of the collective conscience, a
concept that combines our ideas of culture, consciousness, and conscience. He was arguing
against the predominance of individualistic emphases in psychology and economics and was
convinced that a society where everyone looked out strictly for his/her own self interest
would be a sociological monstrosity. In this context, he discovered an important function for
crime and talked about the normality of crime. Not only can crime not be eliminated, but the
way in which a society reacts to crime contributes to the health of society in important ways.
A. If the collective conscience were so strong that no one could imagine violating the basic
norms, change would be impossible and that society could not adapt to new conditions and
challenges. Indeed, what is initially labelled crime sometimes serves as "an anticipation of
future morality." Think of Margaret Sanger, jailed for opening a birth control clinic in New
York City, or Rosa Parks, jailed for refusing to give up her seat on the bus, or maybe Jack
Kervorkian, currently imprisoned in Michigan for his role in doctor-assisted suicides.
B. Durkheim asks us to imagine a society of saints... perhaps it would help to think about a
group like the Amish. In such a society, deviance doesn't disappear; it just gets defined by a
more sensitive standard. If there are no armed robbers, greed in small areas of life may be
perceived as sinful; if no murderers, petty hatreds may be singled out.
C. The real function of punishment is not the abolition of crime, which is impossible, but the
reaffirmation of society's basic values. People turn out in large numbers for public
executions, they buzz with gossip of the latest atrocity, they devour media representations of
crime, because this is an opportunity to draw the line between us (the good people) and them
(the bad guys).
This is not to say that Durkheim believed every level of crime was healthy; in fact, he was
concerned that France in 1900 was becoming too individualistic, the collective conscience
too weak, and a whole variety of social pathologies such as crime and suicide were on the
rise.

II. Kai Erikson, Wayward Puritans

In my view, Erikson provides the most creative and powerful application of functionalist
ideas about deviance by a contemporary sociologist in this analysis of crime and punishment
in the 17th century Massachusetts Bay Colony (the land of the Puritans).
"Human behaviour can vary over an enormous range, but each community draws a symbolic
set of parentheses around a certain segment of that range and limits its activities within that
narrow range. These parentheses, so to speak, are the moral boundaries of that society.
Deviant behaviour and the group's reaction to deviance are the key processes in defining
those boundaries and investing them with moral fervour.
"The excitement generated by the crime quickens the tempo of interaction in a group and
creates a climate in which the private sentiments of many people are fused into a common
sense of morality."
How is it that people learn the boundaries and convey them to the next generation? This takes
place through "criminal trials, excommunication hearings, courts martial, or even psychiatric
case conferences." More often than not, we don't really expect to reform the deviant
(especially to the extent that we are influenced by our Puritan heritage, because the Puritans
believed that God had destined people for heaven or damnation before he even created the
world) but the processing of the deviant is a ritual, ceremonial occasion for society as a
whole.
In this book, Erikson provides at least a mini-test of three propositions that he teases out of
Durkheim's analysis:
1. That there is a close relationship between the type of moral boundaries emphasized in a
given society and the type of deviance that predominates. Puritan society, for example,
generated large quantities of religious deviance; Bolshevik society generated the great
political trials of the 1930s.
2. That in a relatively stable society, the amount of crime is likely to remain somewhat
constant... for example, when England was shipping all her worst criminals to the colonies,
the overall rate of crime processed by the English courts probably did not drop significantly.
Erikson looks at the records of a particular Puritan court and shows that during the Quaker
crime wave (when Quakers were being punished by the courts for their religious heresy),
other kinds of crime got less attention from the court.
3. Crime waves are produced not so much by a multiplication of criminal acts as by some
kind of moral crisis or challenge to the collective conscience. A good example would be the
McCarthy hearings of the 1950s and the discovery of large numbers of communists and
"fellow travellers" in the midst of American society that were subsequently blacklisted and
driven from their jobs.
One of the interesting aspects of Erikson's treatment of these moral challenges and crises is
that Erikson does not assume they will always be resolved in the direction of the stability of
the old moral order. Thus, Erikson's functionalism does not have the conservative bias
attributed to figures like Talcott Parsons at Harvard in the 1940s and 1950s.

Assignment:
What do you understand by labelling theory and functionalist theories of deviance? Explain.
Guidelines:
Guidelines:
(a) Writing the assignments should help you to end up with an in-depth understanding of the
topic/concept.
(b) The study material given to you will be helpful for writing the assignment.
(c) Make sure that it is presented in logical way and has clear connection with the
question/problem
presented.
(d) Do not copy from the assignments of other candidates. If copying is noticed, the
assignments of
candidates who has copied as well as who has written originally both will be rejected.
(e) Write each assignment separately for each course.

(g) Clearly mention your name, enrolment no., Programme name, Class, Course (subject)
name
and
Date at the top of first page.
(h) The assignment is to be submitted at ashmita.chandela@gitarattan.edu.in latest by 8am on
27/03/2020.