The emergence of labelling perspectives in criminology can be traced to

social, political, and economic changes that were taking place in advanced
capitalist societies (particularly the United States of America) during the
1960s and 1970s. During the 1950s, society was viewed as one of shared
interests, values, and economic opportunity. In other words, consensus
existed within society. This view of society begins to change during the
1960s with the idea of social consensus beginning to crumble. To put it
another way, by the 1960s, conventional values and basic assumptions
about the ‘American way of life’ were challenged by the rise of the following
social movements:

• Youth culture: the birth of rock and roll

• Gay and lesbian rights
• Women’s liberation movement
• Civil rights movement
• Resistance to the Vietnam War

Conflict during this time went to the heart of mainstream society during this
time and had a major impact on sociological understanding of society. Some
sociologists began to see society, not as one based on consensus, but
instead as pluralistic – in other words, made up of a number of diverse
groups and classes, each with their own interests. This meant that social life
was not immutable, but instead, subject to constant flux depending on what
groups had access to the power to define social norms. Therefore, what was
defined as deviant one day might not be the next, and behaviours defined by
one group as deviant might be quite acceptable to another group.

Now let’s begin to think how this new understanding of society – based not
on consensus, but instead on pluralism – impacted understandings of crime
and criminal behaviour. We will begin with exploring how crime is defined
within labelling perspectives:

• Crime and criminal behaviour are a social process

• The definition of crime or criminal behaviour depends on who has
the power to label
 • A deviant or criminal label is conferred by those who hold the
power to label (i.e., criminal justice system and its officials

The focus of analysis used within a labelling perspective is on:

• The nature of the interaction between ‘offenders’, ‘victims’, and

criminal justice officials
• The analysis of relationships between the offender and those with
the power to confer a label and have it ‘stick’
• An examination of stigmatization as a consequence of the
labelling process
Take a Moment
Reflect for a few moments on how being labelled a ‘criminal’ can and does
impact the life of an individual even after they have served their time and
are released. Can you identify potential impacts of being labelled a criminal?
Can you think of examples where someone has been labelled as either a
criminal or a deviant even if ultimately they have been cleared of any
charges?

Labelling perspectives also shifted the focus on crime causation, the nature
of the offender, and institutional responses to criminal behaviour. Consider
the following:

• Crime results from stigmatization and the negative effects of

labelling
• If an individual is officially branded as criminal or deviant, it may
result in the individual acting in a manner that fits the label
• The ‘self-concept’ and social opportunities of the offender are
influenced by the labelling process
• The nature of the offender is determined by the labelling process
- negative labelling may result in individuals seeking out the
company and comfort of others who have likewise been defined
as outsiders. Think about the potential development of criminal
subcultures

Figure 5.1: Concepts of Self and Symbol.

From a labelling perspective the response of the criminal justice system

should be:
 • Based on a foundation of tolerance and diversion from the
negative impact of labelling
• Diversion from the system to minimize the stigmatizing aspects of
the criminal justice system. Diversion in the Canadian Criminal
Justice System refers to programs mandated to remove
individuals from the formal system and are usually only offered to
first-time offenders charged with relatively minor offenses.
Individuals who are accepted into diversionary programs are
asked to accept responsibility in an informal setting outside of the
court. They will be expected to take certain actions that may
include restitution for damages, apologies, and/or community
service hours. Once the conditions are met, the criminal charges
are withdrawn and the court case is complete.
• For the need to decriminalize certain ‘victimless’ crimes or ‘non-
predatory’ activities to reduce stigmatization and its
consequences
• For prevention based on the principle of (radical) non-
intervention, or at least, minimal interference
• Less serious offences should not warrant arrest, court
appearance, or incarceration

Labelling perspectives were widely influenced by social psychology,

phenomenology and ethnomethodology. They are strongly linked to the
symbolic interactionist perspective found in sociology in that they:

• Examine the social construction of reality

• Employ concepts such as ‘self’ and ‘symbol’ to explain social
behaviour
• Examine the diversity of individual responses to social situations
• Focus on how people typify one another (e.g. ‘mentally ill’ or
‘young offender’) and relate on the basis of these typifications
• Argue that individuals respond to situations by reading symbols
(e.g. gestures or words) around them
• Posit that the ‘self’ refers to how people see themselves and is
built through social interactions
• Also argue that humans role-play by taking on the role of the
‘other’ and that we collectively construct reality through the use
of signs and symbols we interpret in the same way
The concept of perception is fundamental to a social interactionist
perspective. In essence, it does not really matter what the situation is, what
matters is how we define it. For example, we could see a bright light in the
sky at night. Some could define it as a comet, while others define it as a
supernatural being – how might the responses differ between each group?
There are a number of other important concepts found within labelling
perspectives that bear considering at this point. As you read, please consider
how these concepts may impact issues regarding the development or
maintenance of criminal behaviours and/or activities.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Figure 5.2: Image Attribution: mimiandeunice.com

• Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)
• People internalize self-concepts framed for them
• They play roles ascribed to them by those that define their reality
(e.g. people labelled as ‘stupid’ or ‘genius’ play the role of being
‘stupid’ or ‘brilliant’)
• A general process is followed that consists of:
o Negative labelling
o Stigmatization
o The formation of a new identity in response to this
negative labelling
o A commitment to this new identity based on available
roles and relationships

Figure 5.3: Negative Labeling.

Subjectivity
• Deviance is not a quality of the actual act, but rather a
consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to
an ‘offender’
• Becker (1963) focused on people regulated to the margins of
society
• According to Becker, people are placed on the ‘outside’ because
their particular behaviour has been labelled as deviant or criminal
by more powerful interest groups in society
 • Labelling theorists suggest that self-report surveys indicate crime
and victimization actually range across all class, gender, and
ethnic boundaries
Primary and Secondary Deviance
Lemert (1969) provides one explanation regarding the importance of
labelling on an individual’s future behaviour. Lemert explored the reasons
why an individual engages in a deviant act and then what maintains their
commitment to this deviant activity. He distinguished between primary and
secondary deviance.

• Primary deviance refers to an initial deviant behaviour

o It does not fundamentally change an individual’s self-
concept
o There is no change in identity and the deviance is seen
as nothing more than a passing event
• Secondary deviance results in formal labelling and will result in a
change in self-concept and identity. For example, a youth may
engage in shop-lifting (primary deviance) and get caught which
triggers an official reaction to that behaviour (police are called,
charges laid). The process of dealing with the justice system may
result in the youth being labelled a ‘young offender’ which may in
turn lead to changes in self-concept and identity and has the
potential to change behaviours

Labelling perspectives have inspired conceptual developments in several

areas including restorative justice and reintegrative shaming which will be
discussed in detail in later weeks.

Figure 5.7: Cultural Criminology.

Cultural Criminology
In addition, cultural criminology integrates criminology, labelling
perspectives, and cultural studies to study the lived experience of crime and
the emotional state of the offender. Katz (1988) argued that it was
important to consider what he defined as the emotional and interpretive
qualities of crime. So what does this mean?
 • According to Katz (1988) emotions such as humiliation,
excitement, and pleasure are often central to why we act as we
do
• It is argued that different states of arousal – fear, anger,
pleasure, excitement – exert major bearings on individual and
group behaviours and for the policies and practices of criminal
justice institutions
• It is a phenomenological theory because of its approach to
studying social phenomenon
• It does not rely on traditional quantitative research methods
• Instead, the focus is on understanding why people do what they
do
• The meaning of crime is created through competition between
social, subcultural, and crime control interests and activities
• There is a recognition on the role of media to construct images
and influence opinion
• Crime is socially constructed and it is important to ask the right
questions when studying issues of crime and criminality. These
questions include:
o Who has the power to use constructed images to their
advantage?
o Who is able to manipulate the images to their
advantage?
o Who are the groups and individuals who contest the
constructed images?

In other words, locating activities within an emotional universe is a

fundamental characteristic of cultural criminology and one that continues to
make strong contributions on our understandings of both crime and policy –
especially in the area of youth and criminal activity.

Take a Moment
Take a moment to come up with activities that may be influenced by raw
emotions and how these emotions may lead individuals or groups to engage
in deviant or criminal behaviours that may be very unlike past behaviours.
Can you think of any?
In summation, cultural criminology is a body of scholarship that tends to
focus on the varied experiential attractions that make up a fundamental
element of much anti-social and criminal behaviour. In other words, locating
activities within an emotional universe is a fundamental characteristic of
cultural criminology and one that continues to make strong contributions on
our understandings of both crime and policy – especially in the area of youth
and criminal activity.

Labelling theories, like any other group of theories, is not without criticisms.
These include:

• A fundamental criticism that labelling theories fail to provide any

explanation for why people offend in the first place (primary
deviance)
• The theories focus instead on social reactions to deviant or
criminal behaviors
• An exclusive focus on crime as defined by social reaction fails to
account for crimes for which there is cross-cultural agreement
about their harmfulness – sexual assault and murder may be
examples
• How do some individuals manage to escape or reject particular
labels? This question is not clearly dealt with within labelling
perspectives and raises important questions
• Concerns around ‘net-widening’. Policies of diversion, rather than
keeping people away from formal involvement in the criminal
justice system, can actually draw more people into its orbit
• Concerns around the concept of diversion and the belief that it
needs strong critical evaluation

Labelling perspectives emerged during a time of social, political, and economic change in
western capitalist societies – foremost the United States of America- and represents a break from
earlier positivist and classical explanations of crime and criminal behaviour. For the first time,
the idea of consensus is challenged and a new understanding of crime and criminality as
subjective and dependant on context and social reaction emerged. The concern of labelling
theorists focused on the nature of action and reaction that led to an individual adopting both a
deviant identity and life-style. Plummer (1979) succinctly sums up the core problems studied
from a labelling perspective:
 • What are the characteristics of labels and their variations and forms?
• What are the sources of labels, both societally and personally?
• How and under what conditions do labels get applied?
• What are the consequences of labelling?

Labelling theories have made an important contribution to criminology by raising issues about
the social reaction process and policies of intervention or diversion. Finally, labelling
perspectives have raised the issue of power and competing interests in society and how power
and interests may impact certain groups and/or individuals who are powerless to resist the label
and may be most vulnerable to the labelling process.

Concepts of power differentials and resistance are taken up in Marxist and feminist theories
which we will begin to explore next week.