• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

  • Home
  • Criminology
  • Theories of crime
    • Anomie/ strain theories
    • Biological theories of crime
    • Career/ Development/ Life-Course
    • Conflict-oriented theories of crime
    • Control
    • Culture/ Emotions/ Situations
    • Learning/ Subculture
    • Rational Choice
    • Sanctioning
    • Social Disorganization
  • Sociology
  • Links
Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für labelling approach

labelling approach

Labelling-approach (overview)

The labelling approach explains delinquency using the interactions between the delinquent and those that define delinquency. Unlike earlier theories, he does not ask for the reasons why someone becomes criminal (etiology), but looks at those processes at the macro level that lead to the criminalisation of certain actions. At the micro-level, the labelling approach explains how the attributes “criminal” or “delinquent” are assigned to individuals and groups. Here it is assumed that the person labelled as a “deviator” will adopt this attribute and adapt his behaviour to it. Accordingly, punishment has the paradoxical effect that it can reinforce delinquent behaviour. Starting from the basics of labelling, later theories examine the different modes of action that punishment can have.

Context

Labelling theories were first developed in the 1950s in the USA. They gained particular popularity in the 1960s. Many, especially younger, scientists at US universities began to question the given power structures and thus to shake the basic concepts of criminology. They criticized the fact that criminology was primarily concerned with the crimes of the powerless and neglected political backgrounds. For these theorists it became increasingly important to question the basic assumptions of criminology. Based on the assumption that the nature of crime is a attribution process, they developed new questions. Theoretically, the theories of these scientists are based on the considerations of symbolic interactionism, as represented by Georg H. Mead or Charles Horton Cooley, for example.

When people are labelled as criminals, as a result of stigmatisation they assume the role of criminals assigned to them in their self-image. Stigmatisation and the new concept of identity close access to conventional, non-criminalised roles.

Labelling theory is mostly attributed to Frank Tannenbaum (1893-1969). In his study “Crime and the Community” (1938), he was the first to describe that defining, identifying, naming and emphasizing certain properties can produce precisely these properties.

Based on Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert’s “Social pathology: Systematic approaches to the study of sociopathic behavior” was published in 1951 and Howard S. Becker’s “Outsiders” in 1963. Becker and Lemert can be seen as the main representatives of the labelling approach.

In the 1960s German sociologist Fritz Sack brought the labelling approach to Germany. He radicalized it there and developed it into the “Marxist Interactionist Theory”, which sees attribution as the exclusive cause of crime. Since sociological theories had hardly been developed in Germany before, the labelling approach represents a radical departure from the criminological way of thinking prevailing at the time. Even more so than in the American region, we can speak here of a paradigm shift in which the etiological paradigm was replaced by the interactionist paradigm.

Talking about a labelling approach, or even a labelling theory, is shortened. There are various suggestions as to which term should be used to describe the different theories. Other suggestions are: Reaction to society (Societal Reaction), sociology of deviance, social interactionism, neo-Chicago school (Beirne & Messerschmidt, 1991), control paradigm, reaction approach or definition approach (Lemmert, 2007). Due to its close connection to conflict theory, the term “Marxist-interactionist” is also proposed (Sack, 1972). Since the term encompasses so many considerations, it is generally more meaningful to speak of an approach than of a theory.

New theories developed out of the labelling approach which examined the effect of punishment more closely (e.g. Braithwaite, 1989 and Sherman, 2004). These theories assume that punishment can have different effects in different contexts. They thus react to the realization that social reactions sometimes amplify deviations and sometimes limit them.

Further information

Video

Kategorie: Theories of Crime Tags: deviance, labelling approach

Labelling – primary and secondary deviance (Lemert)

Edwin M. Lemert distinguishes between primary and secondary deviance. An individual first commits primary deviance. Through a process of labelling the individual is forced to play the role of deviant. As a reaction to this role assignment (“You are criminal!”), the labelled person adapts his behaviour according to the role assigned to him (“Then I am criminal!”). This behaviour reaction is called secondary deviance.

Main proponent

Edwin M. Lemert

Theory

In his book Social Pathology, published in 1951, Lemert developed the concept of secondary deviance. He developed this perspective further in 1967 in his book Human deviance, social problems, and social control. Although Lemert himself preferred the concept of social reaction to labeling, Lemerst’s distinction between primary and secondary deviance is a decisive development in the formulation of labelling theory.

Primary Deviance

Primary deviance arises from various socio-cultural and psychological causes. In other words, the term primary deviance describes deviant behaviour that occurs from a cause attributable to the perpetrator. While primary deviance is recognized as undesirable, it has no further effect on the status and self-image of the deviant(s). The deviant does not define himself by deviance, but rationalizes and trivializes it. Thus a positive self-image can be maintained, which goes hand in hand with one’s own role in society.

Secondary Deviance

Secondary deviance is triggered by reactions that follow the primary deviance. The social reaction to deviant behaviour ensures that the deviant is stigmatised. These social reactions include the deviant being labelled as criminal. However, this label contradicts the self-image of the labelled person and is therefore not role-conform. In order to escape the resulting cognitive dissonance, the individual ultimately adopts the label “deviant” or “criminal” and adapts his or her future behaviour accordingly.

For Lemert, the transition from primary to secondary deviance represents a process of development. Increasingly stronger deviance is followed by ever stronger social reactions, which ensure that deviance solidifies.

Critical appreciation & relevance

The approaches of Edwin M. Lemert and Howard S. Becker are certainly among the most influential theories in (critical) criminology. The understanding that punishment and social sanctions can be paradoxical and cause further deviant behaviour has influenced a number of other theories, but labelling theories have also often been subject to criticism since their very inception.

In particular, Lemert’s theory can be criticized for not giving enough weight to primary deviance. It is questionable what part of deviant behaviour is really explained by Lemert’s theory. In particular, it seems questionable whether offences that can be characterized as secondary deviance do not only account for a small proportion. This point of criticism is increasingly being raised by advocates of positivist criminology. They often take the view that secondary deviance (if any) can explain only a relatively small proportion of criminal behaviour. For them, however, the question of why people begin to deviate at all is much more interesting.

From the other end of the political spectrum, Becker and Lemert’s approaches are criticized for assuming the existence of primary deviance at all. The radical labeling approach according to Fritz Sack, for example, assumes that deviance is ubiquitous. From this perspective, it is solely the process of labelling that is responsible for who we describe as criminal and who not.

Another criticism of labelling approaches is that they mostly only refer to certain ‘light’ forms of crime. It is questionable to what extent acts such as murder, rape or war crimes can really be regarded as criminal only because they are labelled as such. It is also questionable what role the aspect of labelling plays in ‘covert’ forms of deviance (e.g. tax evasion, child abuse).

Implications for criminal policy

Since labeling approaches assume that societal reactions to deviant behavior (can) have a reinforcing effect on it, they suggest that these forms of ‘labelling’ interventions should be avoided as far as possible.

Decriminalization, alternative conflict resolution models, and de-institutionalization are promising measures to prevent secondary deviance. The most important criminal policy implication of labelling theories is that ‘law and order’ and other intensive and repressive forms of policing can have a paradoxical, unintended effect – i.e. can lead to crime rates rising rather than falling.

John Braithwaite and Lawrence Sherman have also addressed the criminal policy implications of labelling theories in their concept of restorative justice.

Literature

  • Lemert, Edwin M. (1951) Social Pathology: a Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic Behavior. New York u.a.: McGraw-Hill.
  • Lemert, Edwin M. (1967). Human deviance, social problems, and social control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Further information

  • Obituary to Edwin M. Lemert: http://www.sonoma.edu/ccjs/info/Edintro.html
  • Societal Reaction and the Contribution of Edwin M. Lemert

Interview with Edwin M. Lemert

Kategorie: Theories of Crime Tags: 1951, aetiological, labelling approach, sanctioning, sociology

Footer

About SozTheo

SozTheo is a collection of information and resources aimed at all readers interested in sociology and criminology. SozTheo was created as a private page by Prof. Dr. Christian Wickert, lecturer in sociology and criminology at the University for Police and Public Administration NRW (HSPV NRW). The contributions and linked articles available here do not reflect the official opinion, attitude or curricula of the FHöV NRW.

Impressum & Kontakt

  • About me
  • English
    • Deutsch (German)

Spread the word


Teile diesen Beitrag
  • twittern 
  • teilen 
  • teilen 
  • E-Mail 

© 2021 · SozTheo · Admin