Labelling as a Primary Source of Deviance: A View from the Three Major Perspectives - Essay Example

Labelling as a Primary Source of Deviance: A View from the Three Major Perspectives Introduction The long-established perspective is that an individual is labelled a deviant largely because that individual either behaves or acts in a deviant way or has attributes that define him or her as a deviant. For instance, an individual is labelled an offender because that individual carry out criminal activities, s/he is labelled mentally disturbed because s/he is mentally disturbed and acts like one. The perspective of societal reaction is that an individual is labelled a deviant mainly as an implication of societal features, specifically the lack of influence, authority and resources which defines him/her as a second best and situates him/her on the fringes of society. It has been a long-established societal belief that for several types of deviant behaviour a corrective societal response will function as a deterrent which will put off future abnormal conducts. In the area of criminology, the theory of deterrence has currently received significant amount of attention and, generally, the evidence from criminology literature substantiates the view (Taylor et al. 1988). In other words, when we examine the impacts of labelling, available evidence constantly suggests that labelling is not the primary source of deviant behaviour. In reality, labelling generally seems to have the reverse effect. The objective of this paper is to explore the effect of the labelling theory using the three major perspectives in the study of deviance: structural-functionalism, interactionism and radical criminology. Then, by referring to two case studies, which are homosexuality and tax avoidance, the usefulness of these major perspectives to the study of deviance and, more particularly the to the analysis of the effects of labelling, will be discussed. Labelling as the primary source of deviance: Views from the Three Major Perspectives Even though the theory of labelling has been well-known among social thinkers and has served an important role in the manner society responds to different types of deviant behaviour, a thorough examination of the viewpoint indicates that it lies on a very weak foundation. Several of the pioneers of the viewpoint seem to have detached themselves from the theory of labelling in its contemporary form, either claiming for an exceptionally different emphasis, or backpedalling and revealing that all they aimed to accomplish was draw attention to the knowledge, already recognised by the social sciences, that abnormal or deviant behaviour concerns social interaction (Merton & Nisbet 1961). Moreover, the evidence apparently indicates that the two most fundamental arguments of labelling theory are significantly inaccurate. Labelling theory claims that minor societal characteristics fulfil the major task in obtaining a deviant label; though, the evidence suggests that one obtains a deviant label mainly due to one’s deviant attitudes and behaviours. In addition, at least with several types of deviant behaviour, personal resources, rather than deterring a deviant label, smooth the progress of entrance into an established deviant position (Taylor et al. 1988). The second major argument of labelling theory is that labelling is the primary source of sustained deviant behaviour. Nevertheless, the facts not merely suggest that this is not the case but as well as indicates that labelling, through prevention or management, usually thwarts callings of deviance (Taylor et al. 1988). In short, even though the concerns within which the theory of labelling is interested with have conceptual and substantive significance, its responses have a tendency to be inconsistent with the evidence. Structural Functionalism Emile Durkheim situated deviant behaviour directly within a sociological perspective by illustrating it as a behaviour which harms well-built and definite conditions of the collective principles. Therefore, for Durkheim, deviant behaviour is not an innate characteristic of a specific set of actions, but instead it is the outcome of a mechanism of social classification. According to Durkheim, we should not assume that an action offends the general conscience because it is deviant, but instead that it is offensive because we criticise and reprimand it (Durkheim 1938). In The Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim claims that labelling is the primary source of deviance by stating that what bestows the characteristic of offence upon acts is not the inherent feature of a given behaviour but that characterisation which the collective sense of right and wrong provides them. However, Durkheim fell short in developing the repercussions of this point of view, although it is immeasurably more appropriate to the investigation of deviancy in highly fragmented societies. He preferred rather, though, to link deviance to a solid collective conscience (Durkheim 1938). Durkheim’s idea was adopted from Robert Merton in his investigation of deviance. Merton studied societal pressures by emphasising an array of ways that individuals might react to such pressures; as the pressures, such as the strains brought about by labelling, crop up in a society so too do deviant reactions (Merton 1979). Interactionism The assumption of Howard Becker (1973) to the labelling of deviance, as illustrated in his work Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, perceives deviant behaviour as the product of social groups and not the characteristic of some behaviour or action. Becker disagrees to other theories of deviance which generally recognise the presence of deviance and thereby, recognise the principles of the mainstream within the social group. As Becker (1973) argues, investigating the behaviour of the individual is inconsequential for the reason that deviance is basically rule violating conduct that is labelled deviant by powerful and influential individuals. The rule violating conduct is unvarying whereas the labelling of the action differs. Becker (1973) portrays rules as the manifestation of particular social norms embraced by the mainstream society. Obliged rules, the emphasis of the theory of Becker, are employed differently and typically allow specific positive implications for individuals who appropriated the label. In other word, affiliates of the rule-formulating group could label rule violating conduct deviant relying upon the extent of response over time. Therefore, Becker argues that labelling is the primary source of deviance by stating that those individuals that are prone to become involved in rule violating behaviour are basically diverse than members of the rule-conforming group. Those individuals who are more likely to violate rules view themselves as morally opposite or morally in conflict with those members of the rule-conforming group. Becker coined the term ‘outsider’ to portray a labelled deviant that acknowledges the label bestowed upon them and see themselves as distinct from the majority. Radical Criminology The theory of labelling is interested less with that brings about the inception of an early delinquent behaviour and more with the impact that official treatment by law enforcement and correctional organisations has on the future of young people who were labelled deviants. The radical criminology perspective argues that some individuals break the rules for several reasons. These particular reasons are peer pressure, biological and psychological defect, poor family relationships and criminal learning experiences (Quinney 1979). Therefore, the effect of labelling on the point of view of radical criminology is not the primary source of deviance. Instead, the perspective suggests that official response to deviant behaviours, facilitate the labelling of some individuals as deviants, troublemakers, and outsiders and confine them in a series of increasing deviant behaviours of social sanctions. Radical criminology puts emphasis on why governments formulate and implement rules. Radical criminologists assume that social, economic and political conflict creates and boosts deviant behaviours. Case Studies In this section, the three major perspectives in studying deviance will be applied to two case studies, namely, homosexuality and tax avoidance. Also, the effects of labelling on these two issues will be discussed. Homosexuality The current homosexual community integrates previous forms of homosexual identity at present reformed by a more absolute understanding of the variability of the concepts of gender and sexuality, which includes transgender individuals and bisexuals, and also by their appropriation and society’s approval and bestowal of social room for homosexuals. Structural Functionalism What started as a subculture has at present become a sector of mainstream culture, encouraged by commercial way of life using publicity at the gay market. According to Dennis Altman (1979), the acceptance of others innate in approval of multiculturalism has resulted in to new tolerance of the gay and lesbian groups. Therefore, in the structural functionalist perspective homosexuality is a part of the social norm. Without the societal acceptance of homosexuality social disorder will definitely take place which will consequently disrupt societal functions. Running in opposition to this recognition is a progressing tradition of homophobia and practices of medical and legal standards which were rigidly anti-homosexual in the 1970s. The seventies witnessed the start of a major evolution in the status of homosexuality from a labelled deviance to an accepted alternative minority, as notable a transformation in the recognition of homosexuality as was the creation of that labelling in the nineteenth century (Altman 1979). Therefore, in the tradition of structural functionalism, the visibility of homosexuality was a confirmation that gays and lesbians are no longer regarded as something to be embarrassed about. Interactionism The term ‘homosexual’ was originally used in the latter part of the nineteenth century and was used eagerly by psychiatrists. However, professionals rather than homosexuals themselves make the decision how they would be perceived and treated, and with hardly any exceptions these professionals were in concurrence, though they structured this perception, that homosexuality was a less tolerable type of sexual orientation than heterosexuality (Altman 1979). Psychiatrists and other experts who label homosexuality as a deviant behaviour are those who Becker calls the rule-conforming groups. The notion of homosexuality as a perversion, an illness, and a deviancy belongs to the steady progress of medicine as science and a dogma, with the authority and influence to identify and classify particular major domains of human behaviour (Altman 1979). Such concepts demonstrate the progress of professional control over the lives of homosexuals through the mechanisms and dialogues of power throughout the past centuries. Radical Criminology The homosexual minority embodies an assertion of millions of homosexuals of a common identity. Moreover, it stands for a new form of social control, in particular successful because gays and lesbians themselves become involve in what radical criminology will refer to as ‘exploitive acceptance.’ Definitely this premise was factual as long as homosexuals themselves were ready to agree to their inferior status, as identified by professionals and dogmas, and to appeal, instead of demand, that they should not be maltreated and harassed. If the perspective of radical criminology will be used, the original intention of the labelling of homosexuals as individuals separately was to enforce the homosexuality in every person onto a recognised minority as a means to representing prohibited desires and encouraging the mainstream society that homosexuality is a phenomenon that happens to other individuals. Once gays and lesbians start to affirm the equal legitimacy of homosexuality, they will direct others individuals, including those who do not essentially sense a need to take on a gay identity, to inquire about their gender and sexual orientation, and if the progress of homosexual confirmation has implied a particular degree of social segregation, it has also and at the same time implied a break down in the inflexibility of sexual meanings (Altman 1979). Therefore, borrowing the assumption of radical criminology, homosexuality is a product of social, economic and political power and conflict. Tax Avoidance Tax avoidance is a major problem of fiscal administration in any country; however, as stated in the first law of fiscal dynamics, “all tax laws are avoidable” (Williams 1996, 502). Hence, governments confront problems in deterring tax avoidance. Nevertheless, the issue of tax avoidance can be viewed in three key perspectives. Structural Functionalism As stated in the article of Dr. David Williams, “tax laws are necessary in any society regulated by law” (Williams 1996, 502). This statement implies that tax is a necessary component of society that has to be met through other societal activities such as forced labour, or by property rights in order for the society to function harmoniously. Hence tax avoidance will disrupt the proper functioning of society. In the case of tax avoidance, labelling is not actually the primary source of the rule-breaking behaviour. The solutions provided to deter tax avoidance such as adopting less avoidable taxes and short-termism or goosing the taxpayer (Williams 1996) do not adhere to the assumption that labelling motivates people to be progressively deviant. Interactionism The perspective of interactionism in the case of tax avoidance is manifested in the differentiation between tax avoidance and tax evasion. The two basically differs in form instead of substance, intention or impact (McBarnet 1990). But most importantly, in studying the economic mechanism underlying the rule violating conduct the presence of labelled deviant and rule-conforming groups emerge. Elites who are able to organise their activities to avoid or evade paying taxes are identified in terms of legitimacy. Consequently, legitimacy is determined by the form of occupation, if it is white collar or blue collar (McBarnet 1990). The labelling of tax avoidance or tax evasion is within the identification of a social group, in this case socio-economic status. Radical Criminology The existence of tax havens has become increasingly felt in the recent decades. As spheres of influence which impose little or no tax on given types of income, they have facilitated capital in evading state regulation. Export processing zones, offshore financial services and flags of convenience have turned out to be increasingly important as sources of tensions and demands on all states. Laws deterring haven exploitation have commonly been unproductive, especially as legal improvement in tax havens is typically considerably ahead (Political Economy, p. 2). The development of these tax havens increases the rate of tax avoidance. Hence, in the perspective of radical criminology, tax avoidance can also be determined by economic and state pressures. Works Cited Altman, Dennis. "The emergence of gay identity in the USA and Australia." Tennett, C. & Stewart, R.G. Politics of the Future: The Role of Social Movements. South Melbourne: Macmillan Australia, 1979. Becker, H.S. Outsiders. New York: Free Press, 1973. Durkheim, Emile. The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press, 1938. McBarnet, Doreen. "Whiter than White Collar Crime: Tax Fraud, Insurance and the Management of Stigma." BSJ (1990). Merton, R.K. "Social Structure and Anomie ." Kelly, D.H. Deviant Behaviour. New York: St. Martins Press, 1979. Merton, Robert & Nisbet, Robert. Contemporary Social Problems: An Introduction to the Sociology of Deviant Behaviour and Social Disorganisation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961. "Pacific Islands Tax Havens." Political Economy (n.d.): 2-3. Quinney, K. "The Social Reality of Crime." Kelly, D.H. Deviant Behaviour. New York: St. Martins Press, 1979. 146-159. Taylor, I. et al. The New Criminology for a Social Theory of Deviance. London: Routldge & Kegan Paul, 1975. Taylor, Ian et al. The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance. London: Routledge, 1988. Taylor, L. et al. Deviance and Society. London: Michael Joseph, 1971. Williams, David. "Trends in Anti-Avoidance." Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation (1996). Read More