Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Labeling theory in today's society
Labeling theory in today's society
Labeling theory in today's society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
With an ever-growing population and a complex diversity of people, humans have been categorizing themselves to indicate they are part of a subculture or group of people whom have set beliefs and traditions. On the other hand, there are people who categorize others by characteristics they possess or things they have done, for example “Autist, Rapist, etc.” In “Stop Labelling People Who Commit Crimes ‘criminals’ an article by Kimberley Brownlee (2012), the author questions why people label one another, causing an effect to not see past the label and judging them as if they have no depth. Brownlee received her BA in Philosophy from McGill, a MPhil in Philosophy from Cambridge and a DPhil from Oxford. Her first job was being a Fulbright Visiting …show more content…
The author gives examples of social areas on earth that have moved on from such labeling, she claims that they hide the complexity of their situation. Moreover, she gives us an example of how useful these signs were to our ancestors, people who were punished in certain ways to socially indicate of their crimes. These certain attributes deemed useful to our ancestors by providing survivability strategies by indicating somebody could be in danger to them. Furthermore, she states that it is important for us to know the details of one’s story instead of blatantly assuming they are wrongdoers by heart, she says that people in prison opposed to the general population are far more likely to have witnessed domestic violence or have been abused or neglected as a child with many more reasons to follow that. To add on she mentions that not all people who break the law are necessarily bad people, sometimes it's permissible to break the law, she gives examples of women in under the Taliban in Afghanistan offending against the law if they sought education and even examples like Martin Luther King Jr, and Nelson Mandela. Finally, she concludes that it is important to be more optimistic, charitable and humble towards people who have committed crimes and let them redeem
Crime and deviant behavior surprisingly helps increase “social activity” among various different people within a society. Therefore, crime and deviant behavior brings “people together in a common posture of anger and indignation…when these people come together to express their outrage over the offense…they develop a tighter sense of solidarity than existed earlier” (Erikson 4). For example, in the Steven Avery case, the people of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, all had very strong feelings of Steven Avery and his family, and as a result they were seen as deviant people in their own hometown. Those feelings towards him, and his family, would be a critical factor when he was accused of the horrendous crime (Making). Based on their feelings towards the Avery family, the society in which he lived developed the overall concept of us versus them (Erikson 11). Therefore, another concept that arises as a result of crime and deviant behavior is public temper, which is described as a “mutual group feeling” (Erikson
Stereotypes within our society have shaped the way we perceive each other. Throughout the book Punished by Victor Rios, a lot of stereotypes were not only reinforced but also used against a lot of the boys. A lot of the boys presented throughout the book had never actually committed a crime but they were treated as if they had. These boys were constantly labeled and categorized, like folders into a filling cabinet or a bin. Sure Oakland, California had a lot of gang-infested areas but that does not mean everyone in that area is part of a gang or is committing a crime. Thus, this book really demonstrates how one can be perceived or labeled as a criminal due to his or her surroundings and how these stereotypes can destroy one’s chance of freedom.
In Western cultures imprisonment is the universal method of punishing criminals (Chapman 571). According to criminologists locking up criminals may not even be an effective form of punishment. First, the prison sentences do not serve as an example to deter future criminals, which is indicated, in the increased rates of criminal behavior over the years. Secondly, prisons may protect the average citizen from crimes but the violence is then diverted to prison workers and other inmates. Finally, inmates are locked together which impedes their rehabilitation and exposes them too more criminal
He further states, “Our identities are socially created” (8). Therefore, it is through the relationships that we develop from the very beginning that is how we define ourselves. The collateral consequences of criminal convictions rather than the direct result are known as “invisible punishments”. In his article “Invisible Punishment”, Travis discusses the unintended consequences of punishing an individual beyond the formal sentence.
Labeling theory in criminal justice, tries to describe the connection between being labeled as a deviant and becoming the very thing the stereotypes suggest “deviant”. Labeling theorist argue that deviant behaviors can be a result of the way one view themselves in society (Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D., 2003). For instance, being label as a social misfit can contribute to individual believing that he/she must engage in misfit behaviors. Arguing that stereotypes can changes self-perception.
Labelling theory: The theory that the terms crime, deviance, or punishment are labels, variously applied by act of power and not some natural reflection of events – American criminologist Howard Becker
Throughout the history of mankind there have been numerous cases in which people were victims of oppression or hate. Among these cases the sole reasoning behind this oppression or hate being based on the perception of others. History has shown that society is responsible for labeling groups of people, generally these labels are misleading.
Once we understand why we act in labeling people, we can work on eliminating the habit of labeling others. We can overcome it by promoting absolute approval, sympathy, and consideration. We can learn to observe and experience the world without judgment. We can remain detached from expectations and demands. We can learn to accept people as they are and will not cause them unnecessary pain.
their acts as criminal and extending this judgement to them as people. Having been labelled, there is an expectation that this criminality must be expressed. With this attached stereotype, the general population will perceive them to be criminal and treat them accordingly. This produces unanticipated effects: the label of criminal is intended to prevent individuals from participating in criminal activities but it actually creates the very thing it intended to stop. It produces a self-fulfilling prophecy which is defined as a false definition of a situation, evoking a new behaviour that makes the original false assumption come true (Burke, 2005).
The labelling theory became dominant within society during the 1940’s and 1950’s, when a group of graduate students from the Chicago school tried a different approach to applying theory to deviant behaviour. Within this group was a highly influential young man, Howard S.Becker who became the person most recognised for his work with the labelling of crime (Williams.F. McShaneM. 2010.p110). Becker argued that labels could be applied through the social reaction of others when a deviant or criminal act had been committed he stated that “Labelling is the process of identifying, categorising and stereotyping social categories such as delinquents” (Davies.M.et.al.2010.p30). When an individual becomes labelled a criminal, people do not consider all the praiseworthy things they may have done previously, they just see that they have committed some form of deviance and are now judged within societ...
If the agents of social control define youngsters as delinquents for breaking the law, those youngsters become deviant. They have been labelled as such by those who have the power to make labels stick. However Becker argued ‘deviance is not a quality that lies in behaviour itself but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it’. From this point of view, deviance is produced by a process of interaction between the potential deviant and the agents of control. Becker then examined the possible effects on an individual being labelled as deviant and that a deviant label can lead to further deviance.
Labelling theory, stemming from the influences of Cooley, Mead, Tannenbaum, and Lemert, has its origins somewhere within the context of the twentieth century. However, Edwin Lemert is widely considered the producer and founder of the original version of labelling theory. This paper, not a summary, provides a brief history of labelling theory, as well as, its role in the sociology of deviance. It attempts to explore the contributions made by labelling theorists, the criticism towards labelling theorists, and the discussion surrounding its reality as an actual theory. In essence, the main focus of this paper besides proving an understanding of Howard Becker, is to describe and evaluate `labelling theory` to the study of crime and deviance, by way of an in depth discussion.
The main focus of the essay will be the implications of labelling theory and how it affects individuals. It also will be focusing on the creation of particular categories of criminals when labelling theory is applied, in addition it will outline what labelling theory is, how it affects people and how it effects the creation of criminal categories. The purpose of this essay is to allow a better understanding of labelling theory and its implication on creating criminal categories.
Crimes are not ‘given’ or ‘natural’ categories to which societies simply respond. The composition of such categories change from various places and times, and is the output of social norms and conventions. Also, crime is not the prohibitions made for the purpose of rational social defence. Instead, Durkheim argues that crimes are those acts which seriously violate a society’s conscience collective. They are essentially violations of the fundamental moral code which society holds sacred, and they provoke punishment for this reason. It is because of these criminal acts which violate the sacred norms of the conscience collective, that they produce a punitive reaction. (Ibid)
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.