The Outsiders Essay

This is a quote from the first two paragraphs of the opening chapter of Howard S Becker’s profound book, “The Outsiders”. This was his first book and is probably the best authority to reference Becker’s views on deviance:

“When a rule is enforced, the person who is supposed to have broken it may be seen as a special kind of person, one who cannot be trusted to live by the rules agreed upon by the group. He is regarded as an outsider. But the person who is thus labeled an outsider may have a different view of the matter. He may not accept the rule by which he is being judged and may not regard those who judge him as either competent or legitimately entitled to do so. Hence, a second meaning of the term emerges: the rule-breaker may feel his

judges are outsider.”
Howard S Becker was conceived on April 18 1928, in Chicago, where he would grow up to direct his exploration as to deviance. He included himself in the realm of music and thus, travelled a musician, throughout the early years of his adulthood. It was the University of Chicago, where he procured immediate cooperation with drug-users, which would hence bring about being extraordinarily persuasive in his work on deviance. Becker's perspective on deviance lead to numerous critiques and were contended by some, including left-wing optimists, to "romanticize the deviant". Becker put forward the view that deviance is created by social groups. He contended that there is no such thing such as a ‘deviant act’; it is moreover that an act of deviance only blossoms in to being regarded as one, through the perception of others and then is defined, per se. However, he also notes that,
“It is easily observable that different groups judge different things to be deviant. This should alert us to the possibility that the person making the judgment of deviance, the process by which that judgment is arrived at, and the situation in which it is made may all be intimately involved in the phenomenon of deviance.”
This is quite interesting as one may infer that others would refer to the majority in society and there are some people who may not categorise something to be deviant. This could also relate to the idea why different countries and nations, have different laws and different penalties which are imposed on individuals who commit criminal acts.
In his endeavours in defining deviance, Becker’s ideas stemmed from the roots of the symbolic interactionism of George Hebert Mead who had idea that one’s construction of oneself is through one’s belief of how they are perceived by other people.

This, he called the idea of ‘the self as a social construct’ and what Cooley referred to as the ‘looking glass self’ . He also built upon the work of Lemert who’s theory of “secondary deviance” led to Becker attempting to define what he meant by expanding on what became to be known as the “labelling theory”. The Outsiders was one of the first books on labelling theory and it was this theory which highly contributed to Becker’s impression in Criminology. He stated that, “Social groups create deviance by [crime] by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance [crime] , and by applying those rules and labelling them as

outsiders.”
He defined deviance as “not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an “offender.”“ He said that a deviant is someone to whom there has been a successful application of the label and that such demeanour is that which people would label, essentially.
Becker's take on the labelling theory concerns the labelling process, additionally with its effects. It proposes that individuals classed as deviants may connect with other individuals who have been marked also, either in light of the fact that they are standardized together, or in light of the fact that other individuals don't wish to connect with them.
Becker’s insight and theoretical influence in Criminology, relates to his contradiction to the theories of positivist thinkers such as Lombroso. Lombroso put forward the theory of the ‘born criminal’ which conveyed that criminals are born with specific physical characteristics. Becker states that scientists have conducted research in attempting to address the prominent question on the minds of laymen, as to why deviants “do it?” and in doing so, have accepted that there is an intrinsic deviant quality about acts which break social rules.

Be that as it may, hypotheses are made to be condemned and created. Without basic examinations of speculations, there would be next to no advancement in numerous zones of learning. This was the means by which Becker himself, was recognised; by his endeavors to clarify the work of alternate scholars. He may have been critical in his examination and through this system, incredibly changed criminology at the time. In an influential and real article, Randall Collins (1998) has outlined the centrality of world intelligent developments (as groups and communication custom chains) all through world history guaranteeing that a surmised life of thirty years – maybe two covering eras is the period that most hypotheses get by.
Becker finishes up Outsiders urging trial examination of his methodology to the labelling hypothesis to be done. This brought about a colossal measure of reactions from social researchers. Though some of this examination reflected Becker's work specifically, some utilized his hypothesis as an issue on which the theory was facilitated.
For instance, Gideon Fishman contemplated adolescent delinquents in a location in the United States to test the labelling theory. His disquisition takes a gander at a negative view of an individual's self-perception and if this recognition has an impact on their succeeding conduct. His results demonstrated that whilst some accepted the label of deviance and progress to take part in degenerate conduct, it is not a widespread wonder as diverse individuals respond to the name in distinctive ways.
Schur takes an alternate methodology to the Becker's hypothesis, adjusting it by moving a portion of the centre to the individual "criminal". He estimates that as deviants arrange and addition control, their social definition slowly changes from social development, uprising to the shaping of standard political gatherings.
Becker's labelling theory is additionally to a great extent connected in exploration into mental wellbeing. Thomas Scheff actualizes Becker's hypothesis when clarifying that individuals labelled mentally ill are labelled in order to clarify certain principle breaking conduct that society cant classify. He does not fret about the infrequent demonstration of deviance, but instead the consistent abnormality that is classed under mental illness. Individuals labelled as such, regularly tackle the conduct anticipated from a cliché mental wellbeing patient as delineated in the media. Scheff accepts that sooner or later in every individual's life, indications of emotional instability will be shown, and just those without force, are to be permanently labelled.

Plummer K argues that ‘Becker's definition ignores the defining characteristics of deviancy in favour of suggesting that social interaction is a universal process.’ He purports the view that Becker’s approach is too broad but does acknowledge that it does accentuate the ambivalence of the word ‘deviant’.

He asserts that labelling theory confronts the standard issue of definitions and qualities and that Becker's definition overlooks the characterizing qualities of deviancy for recommending that social connection is a widespread procedure. He professes it to be excessively general, although it highlights ambiguities with classes like ‘deviance’. Furthermore, that the vast majority appear to recognise what considers deviant action - it would seem that an exceptionally conceptual sociological point, simple fallacy, to propose that "murder is just what is named as murder". Considerably Becker moves in an opposite direction from this issue with his class of 'secret deviancy', which suggests that deviancy can exist without being found and named. The methodology needs a tighter definition, for example, needing to clarify just 'rule violation followed by stigmatisation'. This could be seen as general, societal or

situational.
Another criticism of the labelling theory is that it is a highly inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes. Ronald Ackers suggests that individual have a freedom of choice in regards to being deviant and it is that choice which leads to commission of deviant acts. He condemns the idea that people are ‘powerless’ as a result of being labelled and criticises both Becker and Lemert for their contributions, in the respect of their views on deviance.
Becker himself considered a percentage of the reactions in "Labelling Theory Reconsidered", for example, the feedback made by creators, for example, Jack Gibbs and David Bordua that the naming hypothesis made no endeavour to give an "etiological" clarification of deviance, or that the hypothesis recommended that one just dedicated deviant acts in the wake of being labelled deviant , and not in the recent past. Becker reacted by saying that it would be stupid to recommend that "stick up men" stick individuals up essentially in light of the fact that somebody has labelled them "stick up men", and that the methodology concentrated on the way naming places the individual so named in settings which make it more difficult for them to proceed with their regular life, in this manner inciting them to peculiar activities, utilizing the illustration that a jail record makes it harder to acquire a living at an ordinary occupation, driving its owner to get an illicit one.
He likewise tended to the feedback made by Ridlon that the labelling theory is untestable, and, by definition, not a genuine hypothesis by expressing that he never thought his unique explanations, justified being called 'theories', in any event not speculations of the completely verbalized kind they are presently being condemned for not being.
In conclusion to assessing Becker's commitment to the investigation of criminology, it ought to be noted that how the 'theory' is seen is elite. In the event that it is considered as an issue,, then it is imperfect from various perspectives. Be that as it may, if considered as Becker recommends, only as an issue of taking a gander at deviance, then its commitment is immense. Whether consenting to, or in dispute with his labelling methodology, a number of people utilize that notion as establishment for their own particular methodologies to deviance, as is clear from the flood of feedback; whether it be criticism or appraisals. As an issue, it is sensible to reason that his labelling theory stays valuable, and will keep on doing so, so long as the length of degenerate conduct keeps on existing.