Howard Becker and the Labelling Theory on Crime and Deviance - Essay Example

Howard S. Becker and the Labelling Theory on Crime and Deviance In 1963, Howard S. Becker developed the labeling theory in a response towards the problem of crime and deviance. Although the early sixties was also an evolution towards the independent human spirit which later on would evolve in to the hippie era as we know it and from this scene we can understand how it was that Becker created a theory in which the labeling of a person who has committed deviant acts as being detrimental to the future of the person as well as the society in which the person is in as they will be morally judged and thus pushing them further back towards their deviance. A person who has been labeled deviant will assume that they are deviant and will be treated as a deviant person and therefore self-fulfills their own prophecy as to the role and the status that they fill within society. A similar theory was proposed by a study conducted by Edwin Lemert (Haralombos & Holborn 2004: 348). Lemert studied North Pacific Coastal Indians and examined social reactions and deviance. Lemert argued in correlation to his study was that deviance was caused by social reactions, his study found out that stuttering did not exist among American Indians and that they did not even have a word to describe speech irregularity. However the North Pacific Coastal Indians whom had a rich history involving speech as traditional ceremonies dictated and praised those who had oral abilities such as singing and speech-making. Because of this parents who usually initiate small children into the society by ceremonies such as this are very cautious and fearful of any speech impediment that their children might have. Those who failed or did not have the ability to become highly articulate were scorned and was vulnerable to peer pressure, this in return resulted a higher rate of speech defects due to cautionary fear. This was in comparison to the other American Indian societies that did not appear to label that such defects exist. Basing on the study Lemert concludes that by labeling and social awareness of such defects actually helps create them by putting anxiety and fear thus the children’s inability for articulate speech. Becker’s labeling theory was used by many sociologists as to how and why deviance was created but it did not address specifically as to how the labeling theory could be applied within society, what was missing from Becker’s labeling theory was that although to some extent it is necessarily true that his argument of deviance and crime was somewhat similar in essence and correlated its functions with one another but deviance is by all means an act that was different from the social norm. In some cases such deviant acts are labeled as criminal and in other societies as being normal but it does not border to the question of criminality, while it is true that some acts of crime such as paedophilia warrant a psychological and even in some instances a biological defect, it is not known as to what extent the question of nature versus nurture play in creating excessively deviant characteristics (Giddens 1997:175). Becker then fails to exemplify the factor of criminality and criminals and to what extent that it becomes necessary to control criminals by labeling them as criminals. However, in some instances Becker’s arguments concerning as to what may seem deviant in one society may seem very normal in another is essential to view some aspects of deviation, when Becker argued that “deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others,” he forgets that there are certain aspects and criterion that needed to be addressed as to the phenomenon he was trying to express. It may be true that nudity in the West is frowned upon and women’s breasts are taboo but in other cultures the exposure of breasts are seen as being part and parcel of everyday life and are considered asexual. Labeling in the media and society pushes people to consider that nudity is deviant, what Becker actually misses is that in the world of the mass media today when although nudity is still considered deviant behaviour semi-nude women grace media covers and are considered sexual sirens of the day. When labeling occurs it does not necessarily mean that the labeled is undesirable within a society, it could actually be secretly or openly desired by a large majority even if social norms dictate it as being deviant. There have also been many instances of current sociologists who believe otherwise from Becker’s labeling theory. It could be possible that some aspects of the labeling theory cannot accommodate the fast changing globalized world today and that perspectives have become multi-faceted and coming from different parts of the world and different cultures that labeling has become incessant, even downright old-fashioned. For example, Stephen Jones (2001) (Haralombos & Holborn 2004:349) argued that there were several implications when the labeling theory is applied within the institutionalized society. Labeling theories, he argues, have a way when actually many criminal and violent acts are de-labeled and the criminal act itself, decriminalized and thus actually enforcing the belief and justification that such deviant acts are the norm. The de-labeling process restricts peers from making moral judgements towards deviant behaviour of the person in question and by leaving the deviant act free and not ‘wrong’ a person may commit the same acts repeatedly believing that he or she is acting within the limits of society. Secondly, Jones argues that the use of the labeling theory in practice within institutionalized societies actually create even more problems. De-labeling allows criminals from ever giving information of their past deviant and criminal acts towards their employers to allow better assimilation into the workforce. The problem is that certain crimes such as paedophilia and excessive violence if withheld will create problems if the person in question should apply for a job at a children’s daycare center or in a school. Another criticism as to the interactionist perspective comes from Gouldner (1975) (Haralombos & Holborn 2004:350). Gouldner argues that the interactionist perspective is excessive in placing their confidence on the nurture aspect of the development of a human being. The labeling theory also does not recognize other aspects that could counteract when being labeled as deviant, it assumes fully that when a person who has committed a deviant act whether truthfully or wrongfully would never be able to achieve a better status or role within their lives and would continually remain deviant because they are already labeled. The human being is not a passive creature that explicitly accepts everything within their lives, they have the ability or choice to change their situation even if the situation seems constraining (Bauman 1997:107-124). Another aspect is that Becker also fails to notice the pros and cons that come with labeling, peer pressure and moral judgement. Labeling and moral judgement does not necessarily act as a manner in which to place a person within a society as deviant and continually throughout to be deviant it also serves as a failsafe and is employed to protect others within the society from committing acts of deviance. Labeling need not necessarily be construed as being negatively crushing but it could also act as a catalyst that could drive a person to social and self betterment. In another aspect of the weakness of the labeling theory is that it only makes an example of those who are poor and do not have the means for upward social mobility that they are turning into a life of crime and deviance to make a living, it does not magnify other acts of deviance that are conducted by those who are not being labeled by society. For example, white collar crime causes even more liabilities than petty crimes of those who are being labeled, what is the catalyst that pushes such people who are usually of a better background in life to commit acts of deviance and crime? (Germov & Poole 2006:301-315) Because of such arguments the labeling theory although is somewhat necessary and beneficial for the assimilation of those who have been labeled as criminals to continue their lives it also acts negatively towards the other aspects that needs to be addressed. In conclusion, Becker’s argument of the individual who have committed an act of deviance as nothing but the tool of his or her society that has propelled them to actually continuously commit actions of deviance is not fully valid but serves as a reminder that in certain aspects of our lives, labeling an individual excessively could lead to moral deterioration but to protect a person from being labeled and morally judged will do nothing but provide them a justification towards their actions. Reference: Bauman, Z. (1997), Thinking Sociologically, Ch.6, pp.107-124, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Germov, J. & Poole, M., (2006) Public Sociology : An Introduction to Australian Society., Ch.15, pp 310-315, Sydney, Allen & Unwin Giddens, A. (1997), Sociology (3rd ed.), Ch. 8, pp.171-175, Cornwall, Polity Press Haralombos, M. & Holborn, M. (2004) Sociology Themes and Perspectives (6th ed.) , Ch. 6, pp.346-350 London, HarperCollins Publishers Read More