Labeling Theory Essay

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me, is a familiar was saying taught to children at a young age to teach them to be strong, to avoid sheltering and build independence. However, that is untrue, over time these names are known as labels that can stick to a person and begin to build, define, and shape a person’s sense of self. These labels are created by a society that can stick to a person and categorizing people and is used to explain deviance. The purpose of this paper is to present the strengths, limitations of labeling theory, and to identify the impact this concept has on the structure of society and a person’s sense of self and image.
Labeling theory emerged during the 1950s, that stemmed from symbolic interactionism suggest the continuous interaction and relationships between individuals contributes to the

development of a person’s identity (Banks 2003). The key concept of labeling theory is that no act is truly deviant, the act is only conceptualized as deviant and criminality is socially constructed, which can vary over time, culture, location, and more (Wellford 2010; Wright 1978).
Fredrick Thrasher studied the consequences of labels in 1997, in Juvenile gangs in Chicago (Shoemaker 2010). Labeling theory is recognized to have negative consequences on society. In 1938, Frank Tannenbaum then introduced the concept of “dramatization of evil”, supporting the idea that when one is given a delinquent label, then they become the exact label given (Shoemaker 2010). Moreover, Tannenbaum sent the groundwork for the concept primary and secondary deviance, which was developed by Edwin Lemert during the 1950s, which then led to labeling theory.
Primary deviant acts are actions, values, beliefs, behaviors, and small acts that break social norms but are not severe caught by authority, general or significant people (Patrunik 1980; Breska 2014). These acts are simply labeled as deviant, but are not illegal or impact the person’s self of steam or sense of self. For example, girls are expected to be quiet and reserve as well as should project this in their image through the way they present themselves. Therefore, it would break a social norm if that girl visibly wore lingerie clothing in public. This form of deviance has a greater chance of changing over time because it is socially constructed and subjective to the person who holds these values. Thus, as society view change the perceptions of deviance change as well.
Whereas, secondary deviance is an act that is more severe, violating social norm that is persistent and serious in the way that laws are broken. Usually, secondary deviant acts are handled by authorities, which are responsible for punishing the individuals who commit the crime. These acts have a stronger community reaction like homicide or assault. Brock Turner, Stanford University student, was convicted of sexual assault in 2016 (CTV National News). This is a prime example of a convict who is labeled as a sex offender; specifically, this case inflicted a synthesis of rage within society because this case was seen as an unjust sentencing. Furthermore, from secondary deviance introduces Goffman’s concept of stigmatization. Stigmatization is when an individual has committed an act that is given a label, that individual then identifies as that label. Stigma is a perception that people view of a group or person that does not fit all individuals (Chettleburgh, Micheal 2007; Tewksbury and Copes 2012). In this way, stigma and stereotypes can be similar.
Labeling theory becomes problematic when it comes to further explaining long term impacts on society. This is important to consider when applying a theory to further explain social phenomena. Moreover, the concept of stigmatization is a factor of negative labeling and over time labels become a part of the construction of social norms. This more to consider when applying the labeling theory because negative labels impact the way society functions. More research and studies further develop the theory into a broader expansion that is more relative and accurate.
For instance, labels and negative stigma on individuals who are incarcerated are a prime example of labels being harmful. For instance, when a formally incarcerated individual has been assimilated into society, there is a negative stigma that is attached to them (Tewksbury and Copes 2012). Negative stigma such as incarceration becomes problematic for individuals to transition into a confirmative view of a stable fulfilling job, build social ties with friends and family.
However, the concept of labels also works as a form of social control. A negative stigma associated with an individual sets an example for society to deviate away from committing the similar or the same crimes in fear of the similar effect. The result of a negative stigma can only occur based on how frequent, intense and sticky the label is. Moreover, norms and values reflect and are created by society, which means they are continuously changing. For instance, Tattoos were associated with deviance in north American culture. Yet, now tattoos are more socially acceptable that it becomes a part of culture
The majority of research and studies on labeling theory focus on those who are previously or already labeled, instead of comparing those who have not been labeled. Symbolic interactionist argues that a person’s identity can also be formed through the reactions of others when a person interacts with other alike individuals they are then labeled as such (Banks 2013). Therefore, that person is then stigmatized. This is important because it suggests there needs to be more room for research. This is problematic because the theory does not completely cover all factors.
The transition from primary to secondary deviance is a fault in labeling theory. This area is societies reaction to the act, which could cause authoritative punishments, stigmas, or social penalties. This shift from primary to secondary deviance is a key factor because the reaction of society is creating the label (Banks 2013). The importance of this is to consider over time, what is seen as deviance and criminalistics may not be later on or vice versa as, perceptions of deviance can change over time, location and cultures (Banks 2013). This contributes to the theory because societies reaction can implement the outcome of change. Therefore, when implementing labels, the label itself becomes an identifier of that person when they are convicted.
For instance, Toronto’s squeegee kids started off as an innocent act of washing car windows on the streets for money (Parnaby 2003).

Over time the claims-makers develop their small act into an issue that led to the implementation of new policies that made panhandling illegal (Parnaby 2003). This is a prime example as to how the transition from primary to secondary deviance is based on society reaction. Society reacted to a negative connotation, where squeegee kids were dehumanized and constructed as a problem based on labels created by claims-makers. As a result, labeling theory has a fault in the transition between primary to secondary deviance.
Labeling theory demonstrates how society organizes and structures relationships, individuals, and classes based on an identity. Labeling theory is subjective, therefore the theory studied the way it is applied and the reaction of others. Labels dive deep into a person’s self-conscious and impacts that person sense of self, esteem, and the way society sees them. This theory itself brings true meaning to the concept that, the way you see yourself, is the way others will see

you.