Labelling and its Effects

Interactionist studies demonstrate how agencies of social control are more likely to label certain groups as deviant or criminal based on stereotypes and typifications.

Key research:

• Piliavin and Briar (1964) found police decisions to arrest youth were based largely on physical characteristics and judgments about character.

• Cicourel's "negotiation of justice" concept shows how officer typifications lead to class bias in arrests, reinforcing stereotypes.

Definition: Typification in sociology refers to the process of constructing and applying standardized ideas or images when classifying people or behaviors.

Interactionists are concerned with the effects of labelling on individuals and groups. They argue that labelling certain groups as criminal or deviant can actually encourage further deviance.

Lemert (1951) identified two forms of deviance:

1. Primary deviance: Acts not publicly labelled, with fewer consequences
2. Secondary deviance: Based on societal reaction after public exposure and labelling

Vocabulary: Master status refers to a label that becomes the primary identifying characteristic of an individual, overriding other aspects of their identity.

Becker argues that being labelled deviant can lead to:

• Stigmatization
• Difficulty maintaining alternative images
• Social exclusion
• Self-fulfilling prophecy

Example: Jock Young's 1971 study of marijuana use among hippies in Notting Hill showed how police intervention led to the development of a deviant subculture centered around drug use.

The concept of the deviance amplification spiral suggests that attempts to control deviance can paradoxically increase it by reinforcing deviant identities and behaviors.

Comparative Analysis: Interactionist vs. Other Criminological Theories

Interactionist theories of crime and deviance offer a unique perspective that both complements and challenges other major criminological approaches:

1. Functionalism:

   • Similarities: Both consider societal reactions to deviance
   • Differences: Interactionism focuses on micro-level interactions, while functionalism emphasizes macro-level social structures

2. Strain Theory:

   • Similarities: Both recognize social factors in causing deviance
   • Differences: Interactionism emphasizes labelling processes, while strain theory focuses on structural pressures

3. Control Theory:

   • Similarities: Both consider the importance of social bonds
   • Differences: Interactionism examines how labelling can weaken bonds, while control theory focuses on initial bond formation

4. Rational Choice Theory:

   • Similarities: Both consider individual decision-making
   • Differences: Interactionism emphasizes the social context of choices, while rational choice theory focuses on cost-benefit analysis

Highlight: Integrating insights from multiple theoretical perspectives can provide a more comprehensive understanding of crime and deviance.

Strengths of the interactionist approach:

• Highlights the role of social interactions in shaping deviant behavior
• Examines the unintended consequences of social control efforts
• Challenges assumptions about the objectivity of criminal justice processes

Limitations:

• May underemphasize structural factors contributing to crime
• Can be challenging to operationalize and test empirically
• Risks minimizing individual responsibility for criminal actions

Example: While strain theory might explain initial drug use as a response to social pressures, interactionist theory could explain how being labelled as a "drug user" leads to further deviance and social exclusion.

Understanding the complementary and contrasting aspects of different criminological theories allows for a more nuanced approach to studying and addressing crime and deviance in society.