What is ‘labelling theory’ and what might be its limitations?
Throughout sociology there are a wide range of theories all aiming to help explain crime and deviance. There is no exact explanation for what crime is and why certain people are more likely to be ‘deviant’; all theories put forward valid perspectives and are still regarded, to an extent, as relevant today. This essay will look into one of these theories in more detail, the interactionist theory, investigating in particular the labelling theory perspective. Drawing on the ideas of Howard (1963) and Lemert (1972) the basis of labelling theory will be explained referring to the explanations of Giddens and Sutton (2013) throughout. The essay will then go on to investigate the limitations …show more content…
This idea originated from Mead in 1934 and was at the forefront of this way of thinking and is still, to an extent widely agreed upon (Matsueda, 1992). The idea of the interactionist theory is a way of looking at the social construction of crime and deviance while not having the approach that there are behaviors that are ‘inherently or objectively ‘deviant’.’ Interactionists look at how these behaviors are classed as ‘deviant’ and investigate who and why particular groups are more susceptible in being labeled deviant. (Giddens and Sutton, …show more content…
In the work of Schrag (1971) whose work ‘Crime and justice: American style’ mentions the assumptions the labelling theory puts forward in the argument on why crime and deviance takes place and to who it happens to. Schrag suggests the main assumptions of the labelling theory are that they say ‘no act is intrinsically criminal’. It is said that the definition of what is criminal and ‘deviance’ is, are created by authorities such as the police and the courts of law (Giddens and Sutton, 2013). However critics such as Wellford (1975) sate that this is not exactly clear and some behavior such as murder and stealing are mainly universally accepted as behavior not acceptable in the society we live in. However this can be further challenged with researchers suggesting that this fact isn’t inherently true as in certain times and places such acts can be accepted; for example in war the act of killing is accepted and in this case expected. (Giddens and Sutton,
Throughout sociology there are a wide range of theories all aiming to help explain crime and deviance. There is no exact explanation for what crime is and why certain people are more likely to be ‘deviant’; all theories put forward valid perspectives and are still regarded, to an extent, as relevant today. This essay will look into one of these theories in more detail, the interactionist theory, investigating in particular the labelling theory perspective. Drawing on the ideas of Howard (1963) and Lemert (1972) the basis of labelling theory will be explained referring to the explanations of Giddens and Sutton (2013) throughout. The essay will then go on to investigate the limitations …show more content…
This idea originated from Mead in 1934 and was at the forefront of this way of thinking and is still, to an extent widely agreed upon (Matsueda, 1992). The idea of the interactionist theory is a way of looking at the social construction of crime and deviance while not having the approach that there are behaviors that are ‘inherently or objectively ‘deviant’.’ Interactionists look at how these behaviors are classed as ‘deviant’ and investigate who and why particular groups are more susceptible in being labeled deviant. (Giddens and Sutton, …show more content…
In the work of Schrag (1971) whose work ‘Crime and justice: American style’ mentions the assumptions the labelling theory puts forward in the argument on why crime and deviance takes place and to who it happens to. Schrag suggests the main assumptions of the labelling theory are that they say ‘no act is intrinsically criminal’. It is said that the definition of what is criminal and ‘deviance’ is, are created by authorities such as the police and the courts of law (Giddens and Sutton, 2013). However critics such as Wellford (1975) sate that this is not exactly clear and some behavior such as murder and stealing are mainly universally accepted as behavior not acceptable in the society we live in. However this can be further challenged with researchers suggesting that this fact isn’t inherently true as in certain times and places such acts can be accepted; for example in war the act of killing is accepted and in this case expected. (Giddens and Sutton,