Interactionism and Labeling Theory

Critically describe labeling theory and give evidence of labeling theory in the Irish criminal justice system. The criminal process can have the effect of increasing criminal behaviour because the labeling process increases the likelihood of the development of a criminal self-image. Would the removal of this process of the criminal justice system do more damage than good?

Introduction:
Symbolic interactionism argues that human actions are best understood in terms of the meanings that those actions have for the actors. Labeling theory, also known as Dramatization of Evil, focuses on how and why society applies the label of criminal to certain people and behaviour, and the effect that label has on the future behaviour of the labeled person. It was developed in the 1930s but only came to prominence in the 1960s. As Beirne and Messerschmidt note, the term labeling perspective would be more appropriate as there is no sat theory as such, however for the purposes of simplicity the term theory will be used in this essay. It looks at the label in relation to the criminals self-image. This area of criminology is related strongly to the areas of positivism and social exclusion. It used to be very popular however due to a large amount of criticism its popularity has subsided.

Labeling Theory: One of the most important meanings within the symbolic interaction theory is the meaning people give to themselves, that is their self-image. The individual then act according to the meanings they ascribe to themselves.

Symbolic interactionism argues that this self-image is constructed primarily though social interactions with other people, what Cooley called the looking-glass self These ideas were used by Tannenbaum as a basis for a labeling theory of crime. He was of the opinion that The person becomes the thing he is described as being. When studying the conflicts between youths and adults in modern neighbourhoods. His theory was heavily influenced by the time which he wrote it, with the American depression of the 1930s in full swing as well as the fact that he himself spent a spell in prison. Lemert presented a general theory of deviance which incorporated the basic labeling process mentioned above. He intended his article as a defence of the theory, but also a desired slight modification. He described people who are involved in criminal/deviant behaviour as primary deviants. This deviant behaviour then generates a negative reaction from others, this in turn leads to the individual taking on a deviant self-image and this is referred to as secondary deviant. Becker holds the view that society itself creates deviance because it is society who defines it as such. Despite these arguments, various studies including the one done by Yochelson and Samenow, have found that many people who are considered criminals do not have a criminal self-image. This is where the 5 techniques of neutralisation come into play: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Denial of responsibility (it wasnt my fault) Denial of injury (they can afford it) Denial of victims (they had it coming) Condemnation of condemners (everyone is crooked) Appeal to higher loyalties (I did it for the gang)

The maintenance of a noncriminal self-image is very important to most people. A criminal trial can be viewed as a status degradation ceremony, which Garfinkel argues occurs in every society to some extent. Becker argues that once this label is applied, it can override other labels. This in turn can lead to the individual having to commit further acts of criminality due to an inability to earn money through legitimate needs. As well as this, individuals labeled as criminals may also associate with others who have the same label. This is one of the basic arguments of the labeling theory that is that the formal and informal processes of social control can actually increase criminal behaviour as the labeling process increases the likelihood that the individual will develop a criminal self-image. Beirne and Messerschmidt note the two primary examples where social control can be counterproductive. These are moral panics and the effects of stigma. Cohens research on moral panics showed how the media, the police and various other moral entrepreneurs conspired to create a panic over the activities of two youth gangs in 1960s

England, namely the Mods and the Rockers. This is known as deviance amplification and can be seen quite frequently, for example football hooliganism in the 1970s and 1980s as well as the London riots of 2011. Another well-known example of deviance amplification was that studied by Young. The subjects of the study were marijuana users of the Notting Hill Gate are of London in the 1960s. He demonstrated how the harmless activity of cannabis use was transformed into a social problem through deviance amplification. Here, the media caused the police to focus attention in this particular area, a process known as targeting. This was met by a defensive stance by the Notting Hill marijuana users and drug use became a stance of defiance. In the end, a small problem was turned into a big problem. Muzzatti and Rothe also note that the notion of terrorism ticks all of the boxes in relation to moral panics. Garland expounds the logical front that moral panics vary in intensity, duration and social impact. It is important to remember that we must not give moral panics to much weight and note rational reactions to underlying problems. As Garland notes, we are living in an age of exaggeration. Because lawmakers understand to some extent the impact that labeling someone a criminal can have on that person, many states in America allow for expungement: a process that wipes a criminal conviction off someones record after a few years have passed. As well as this, the law in America acknowledges the impact of labeling is through diversion programs. Diversion programs often give people who have been charged with nonviolent crimes a chance to avoid conviction if they comply with conditions set by a judge. An example of a label is that of wetback which is used to describe those who have illegally crossed the US-Mexico border and as Bustamante notes, the wetback acts on this label. It is this label as a deviant which is one of the reasons why exploitations of these workers is so ripe. Targeting is an aspect of the labeling theory that can be seen quite clearly in Ireland. Carey points out that the police are subject to the same bias, prejudice and stereotypical nature of society as everyone else, however they are in a unique position by the virtue of their ability to invoke our society's most indelible censorial practice, the criminal sanction. Also as ODonnell and OSullivan point out, zero tolerance legislation concerned with issues such as vagrancy and public order offences often single out specific groups for special attention. This is a bias brought on by a label, moral panics and legislatively imposes social stigmas.

Ring also notes how, in respect to the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act 1993, it is the prostitutes who are usually convicted, as opposed to the individuals seeking them, the kerb crawlers. As Ireland becomes more urbanised and what is known as gang culture grows, as will stereotyping and targeting. This is indeed a cause for concern.

Criticisms: As Davenport notes, the labeling theory was very popular following Tannenbaums published work in 1938. The labeling theory is not without its critics, although few theories are. As Akers humorously noted, labeling theorists sometimes have overemphasised the importance that the official labeling process can have. He gets the impression that some labeling theorists are of the impression that people walk along minding their own business when they are suddenly smacked by a label. Labeling theorists generally portray the deviant as resisting the label and accepting it only when it can no longer be avoided. This is not always the case as gang culture in America and the issue of ASBOS in England demonstrate. In some cases, the label is in effect a medal. It is generally recognized that the labeling functioning of the criminal courts is the primary technique of social control, even more important than the giving out of punishments. This is why harsh sentences are usually not required where a social stigma is attached to the label. Reducing the stigma may in fact require the courts to give harsher punishments. For these reasons it is safe to presume that the Irish Criminal Justice System wont stop labeling any time soon. Another criticism rests upon the tradition of subjective observations and definitions. As Goode points out, Tannenbaum and the labelists that followed him, adopted subjective labels. They argued that definitions of deviance varied across cultural and class lines, making it impossible to use the same objective definition for every single person. This was at odds with the objective definitions generally desired by scientific methods. Nevertheless, it is believed that this subjective approach is the most suitable. Labeling theory has also been criticized for only focusing on the deviance of the poor, as the rich commit crimes of a different nature. However, no aspect of the theory restricts itself to the poor. It must be noted that this critique is not unique to labeling theory and is a problem across the board of criminology. Finally, academics such as Ditton believe that the labeling theory (or perspective) has suffered by the fact that its followers do not seem to want to forward it as a complete theory.

Conclusion: The labeling theory is subject to a heavy wave of criticism from all angles, however to its credit it acknowledges these weaknesses and defends itself against them, for example how the subjective approach is the most suitable. However, it is the criticism that it cannot defend itself which are its ultimate downfall. Despite this criticism, theorists such as Matsueda and Heimer worked to reaffirm labeling theory. Tittle holds the opinion that the labeling process does not create more crime than it eliminates and this very reasonable point of view is backed up by Vold, Bernard and Snipes. When Tannenbaum wrote Crime and the Community in 1938, he could not have foreseen the influence it would have on modern criminology. As Beirne and Messerschmidt note, it has had an important influence in criminology, primarily because it emphasises the fact that terms like deviance and crime are applied selectively to social behaviour. Although it has fallen out of favour in recent times, it is an important part of criminology and our understanding of the causes of crime. The issues of moral panics and stigma demonstrate that the theory has some merits, however its criticisms are numerous and rather hefty.