Interactionism and Labelling Theory of Crime

Interactionism and Labelling Theory of Crime and Deviance

Labelling theory shifts the focus from asking "Why do people commit crime?" to asking "Why are some people and actions labelled as criminal while others are not?" This perspective, rooted in symbolic interactionism, has transformed the sociology of crime.

Core Ideas

No Act is Inherently Deviant

• Becker (1963): "Deviance is not a quality of the act a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an 'offender'. The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied."
• Whether an act is deviant depends on how others react to it — the same act can be criminal or legal, deviant or normal, depending on:
• Who commits it (age, class, ethnicity, gender)
• When it is committed (wartime killing vs peacetime murder)
• Where it is committed (nudity on a beach vs in the street)
• Who observes and reacts to it
• This means deviance is socially constructed, not an objective property of an act

Moral Entrepreneurs

• Becker (1963): moral entrepreneurs are individuals or groups who campaign to have particular behaviours defined as deviant or criminal
• They create new rules and laws that criminalise previously acceptable behaviour
• Examples:
• The temperance movement campaigned to ban alcohol (US Prohibition, 1920–33)
• Anti-drug campaigns led to the criminalisation of cannabis and other substances
• Child protection campaigners have created new categories of child abuse
• Moral entrepreneurs are typically from powerful groups who impose their definitions of morality on others
• The creation of a new rule creates a new group of "outsiders" (deviants) and a new group of enforcers (police, social workers) whose jobs depend on the rule being maintained

The Labelling Process

Becker (1963) — Outsiders

• Studied marijuana users and jazz musicians in 1950s America
• Found that becoming a marijuana user involved a learning process: learning to smoke, to recognise and enjoy the effects, and to define the experience as pleasurable
• Whether someone was labelled as a deviant depended not on the act itself but on societal reaction — many marijuana users avoided the label entirely
• Primary deviance: the initial act, which may go unlabelled and has no consequences for the individual's identity
• Secondary deviance (from Lemert, 1972): once labelled, the individual is treated as a deviant, and the label becomes their master status — all other identities (parent, worker, neighbour) are overshadowed
• The label can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: treated as deviant, the individual may internalise the label and commit further deviance

Lemert (1972) — Primary and Secondary Deviance

Edwin Lemert made the crucial distinction:

Type	Definition	Example
Primary deviance	Deviant acts that are not publicly labelled; the individual does not see themselves as deviant	A teenager who shoplifts once but is not caught
Secondary deviance	Deviance that follows from societal reaction to the initial act; the label produces further deviance	The same teenager is caught, labelled as a "thief," excluded from school, and turns to crime as a career

• The key insight: societal reaction (labelling) is the cause of further deviance, not the original act
• Labelling creates deviance rather than simply identifying it

Cicourel (1968) — The Negotiation of Justice

Aaron Cicourel studied juvenile justice in two Californian cities:

• Found that police officers used typifications — stereotypical images of the "typical delinquent" — to decide who to stop, question, and arrest
• The "typical delinquent" was young, male, lower-class, from a broken home, and from an ethnic minority neighbourhood
• Middle-class juveniles who committed the same offences were less likely to be arrested because:
• They did not fit the typification
• Their parents were able to negotiate with police, presenting their child as fundamentally "good" ("He's just going through a phase")
• They were more likely to be cautioned than charged
• Probation officers also used typifications — their background reports reflected class-based assumptions about "good" and "bad" families
• Conclusion: justice is negotiated, not simply applied — the same act leads to very different outcomes depending on the class, ethnicity, and family background of the offender
• Crime statistics do not reflect the real distribution of crime — they reflect the decisions and biases of those who produce them (police, courts, officials)

Piliavin and Briar (1964)

• Observed police officers and found that the decision to arrest was based on physical cues: manner, dress, ethnicity, time, and place
• Officers were more likely to arrest youths who showed "disrespect" or who fitted the stereotype of a delinquent
• Respectful, well-dressed, middle-class youth received informal warnings

The Consequences of Labelling

Deviance Amplification

Labelling can make deviance worse through a process of deviance amplification:

1. An initial act of deviance occurs

2. Moral entrepreneurs and/or media create a moral panic

3. Social control agencies (police, courts) respond with a crackdown

4. The crackdown pushes the deviant group further into deviance (they are excluded from conventional society and pushed towards a deviant subculture)

5. More deviance is detected (because of increased surveillance), confirming the original concern

6. This produces further moral panic and further crackdown — a deviance amplification spiral

Jock Young (1971) — The Drugtakers

• Studied marijuana users in Notting Hill, London
• Initially, drug use was peripheral to their lives — casual, recreational, and seen as harmless by the users (primary deviance)
• Police crackdowns (driven by media moral panic) forced users underground:
• They became more secretive, more reliant on criminal dealers, and more focused on drug use as a central part of their identity
• The drug-using subculture became more cohesive and defiant — drug use became a symbol of group identity and resistance
• The crackdown amplified the deviance rather than reducing it
• Conclusion: social control can be counterproductive — it creates the very problem it claims to be solving

Cohen (1972) — Folk Devils and Moral Panics

Stanley Cohen analysed the Mods and Rockers moral panic of the 1960s:

• Minor clashes between groups of young people at seaside resorts were exaggerated and distorted by the media
• The media created "folk devils" — stereotyped, demonised images of Mods and Rockers as threatening, violent hooligans
• This generated a moral panic among the public — disproportionate anxiety about a perceived threat
• Moral entrepreneurs (politicians, police, magistrates, editors) demanded a crackdown
• Increased policing led to more arrests, which seemed to confirm the original media claims
• Young people were attracted to the labels — some went to the seaside specifically to be part of the excitement
• Result: a classic deviance amplification spiral — the societal reaction created more deviance than would have occurred without it

Key Concepts from Cohen

Concept	Meaning
Folk devils	Stereotyped, demonised groups presented as a threat to society
Moral panic	Exaggerated public anxiety about a perceived social problem
Deviance amplification spiral	The process by which societal reaction to deviance increases it
Moral entrepreneurs	Those who campaign to define behaviour as deviant and demand action

Master Status and Deviant Career

Becker (1963) — Master Status

• Once labelled, the deviant identity becomes the individual's master status — it overrides all other identities
• A person labelled as a "criminal" or "drug addict" finds that this label dominates how others see and treat them
• This produces a self-fulfilling prophecy: excluded from conventional opportunities (jobs, housing, relationships), the individual is pushed towards further deviance
• The individual may develop a deviant career — progressively deeper involvement in deviance, culminating in joining a deviant subculture that provides support, identity, and rationalisation for the deviant behaviour

Goffman (1963) — Stigma

• Erving Goffman argued that labelling creates a stigmatised identity — a "spoiled" identity that marks the individual as different and inferior
• The stigmatised individual must manage this identity through techniques such as passing (hiding the stigma), covering (minimising it), or embracing it (adopting a deviant identity proudly)

Evaluation of Labelling Theory

Strengths

• Shifts the focus to the reaction to deviance rather than just the deviant — highlights the role of power in defining crime
• Shows that crime statistics are socially constructed — they reflect police decisions, not the real distribution of crime
• Explains deviance amplification and why crackdowns can be counterproductive
• Influenced real policy: decriminalisation, diversion programmes, restorative justice (all based on the idea that labelling makes things worse)
• Highlights the class and ethnic bias of the criminal justice system (Cicourel, Piliavin and Briar)

Weaknesses

Criticism	Source
Deterministic: assumes labelling always leads to secondary deviance and a deviant career — but many people resist labels	Labelling does not inevitably produce secondary deviance
Ignores the initial cause of deviance: why did the person commit the act in the first place? Labelling theory only examines the reaction, not the origin	Marxists and functionalists
Too sympathetic to the deviant: romanticises criminals and ignores the real harm crime causes to victims	Left realists (Lea and Young)
Ignores structural causes: does not explain why certain groups (working class, ethnic minorities) are more likely to be labelled — this requires a structural (Marxist or feminist) analysis	Taylor, Walton & Young (1973)
Not all labelling is negative: labelling theory implies all social control is harmful — but some (e.g., labelling child abusers) is protective and necessary	Functionalists

Exam Tip

For the Crime and Deviance paper, labelling theory is essential for evaluating virtually every other perspective. Use Cicourel to challenge official crime statistics (functionalists and positivists rely on these). Use deviance amplification to challenge right realist calls for tougher policing. The best answers use labelling theory as an analytical tool throughout the essay, not just in a section on interactionism.