labelling theory

Becker was influenced by the following: Charles Cooley's Human Nature and the Social Order (1902) examines the personal perception of oneself through studies of children and their imaginary friends. Cooley develops the theoretical concept of the looking glass self, a type of imaginary sociability (Cooley 1902). People imagine the view of themselves through the eyes of others in their social circles and form judgements of themselves based on these imaginary observations (Cooley 1902). The main idea of the looking glass self is that people define themselves according to society's perception of them (www.d.umn.edu ). Cooley's ideas, coupled with the works of Mead, are very important to labeling theory and its approach to a person's acceptance of labels as attached by society. George Mead's theory is less concerned with the micro-level focus on the deviant and more concerned with the macro-level process of separating the conventional and the condemned (Pfohl 1994).

In Mind, Self, and Society (1934), Mead describes the perception of self as formed within the context of social process (Wright 1984). The self is the product of the mind's perception of social symbols and interactions (www.d.umn.edu ). The self exists in objective reality and is then internalized into the conscious (Wright 1984). The idea of shifting the focus away from the individual deviant and looking at how social structure affects the separation of those persons considered unconventional has a great influence on how Becker approaches labeling theory. In 1938, Frank Tannenbaum presented his own approach to labeling theory in response to his studies of juvenile participation in street gangs (www.d.umn.edu ).

Tannenbaum describes the process of defining deviant behavior as different among juvenile delinquents and conventional society, causing a "tagging" of juveniles as delinquent by mainstream society (www.d.umn.edu ). The stigma that accompanies the deviant "tag" causes a person fall into deeper nonconformity (Pfohl 1994). Although Lemert discounts the influence of Tannenbaum on the development of labeling theory (www.sonoma.edu ), Tannenbaum's approach is incorporated in many societal reaction theories. Social Pathology (1951) outlines Edwin Lemert's approach to what many consider the original version of labeling theory. Lemert, unhappy with theories that take the concep...

... middle of paper ...

... Scheff should not dismiss the influence of psychopathological variables on mental illness. Gove (1980) also criticizes Scheff's empirical methodology and operations.

Edwin Schur modifies Becker's labeling theory in Labeling Deviant Behavior (1971) by shifting some of the focus to the individual deviant. Schur (1971) also theorizes that as persons labeled deviant gain power and organize, they progress in social definition from an uprising, social movement, and civil war to the formation of a mainstream political party. Schur argues in Labeling Women Deviant (1983) that women in America are automatically labeled deviant by the male-dominated society. Women accept the deviant label as their master status and limit their life chances (Schur 1983). Social scientists disagree on the future of labeling theory. Pfohl (1994) recognizes labeling theory as very influential in today's studies of deviance. Some social scientists view labeling theory as declining in importance due to lack of empirical support and a conservative political climate (www.mpcc.cc.ne.us ). Becker (1963) believes the future of labeling theory lies in the widespread empirical study of deviance and kinds of deviance.