Assess The Usefulness Of Labelling Theory In Explaining Crime And Deviance

Focusing on inter hazardionist approaches such as Becker (1963) labelling theory suggests that deviancy is a affectionate process usually related to powerfulness differences but it doesnt rationalise the causes of offense. It does even so explain why some people or actions atomic number 18 described as abnormal, and poop help in understanding offense and deflection. Becker betokens deflexion is a behaviour which has been denominate deviant by the reaction of others. This suggests that there is really no such topic as a deviant act. An act only becomes deviant when others perceive it as such.The application of a label to soulfulness has significant consequences for how that psyche is treated by others and perceives him or herself. Studies such that by jockstrap and Young (1971) exemplify Beckers subscribe to that there is no such topic as deviant behaviour. Interpretivist sociologists (interactionist) argue that we skeletal system our self-indistinguishability by interpreting how others respond to us and internalising the reaction. A label can befuddle positive and prohibit effects on an individual and it helps define them in the eyeball of others. Becker calls this the self-concept.Interactionist theory suggests that being labelled as deviant can actually increment deviant behaviour. For example if a somebody is in trouble with the police wherefore they are more likely to retrogress to unlawful activity or criminal behaviour. Jock Young (1971) used his reckon of drug users in Notting hill to bear witness the process of becoming deviant. The studies showed 4 disparate stages. Firstly, the marijuana users developed a deviant self-concept because their drug of prime(prenominal) was illegal wherefore the deviant element became their main identity in ships company.They were considers hippies first and first off then the negative response of those or so them and the police made the drug winning a significant part of their dwell and then their drug taking increased. Labelling theory is clearly validates behaviour. Additionally, Lemert (1972) identifies indigenous and subsidiary deviance. first-string being when deviance is not in public labelled as much secondary is deviance that follows once a person has been publicly labelled as deviant.Lemert force a distinction between primary and secondary deviance through a necessitate ofstuttering amongst a Native American nation. He observed that public dissertation was important among the nation yet displayed elevated levels of stuttering. When young boys showed any delivery desolate parents reacted with such concern that the child became upturned ab bring out it and more nervous create him to stutter. Therefore the primary deviance of the speech defect was not that important, it was the effect of the demented parents, labelling the child, causing the nervousness, leading to the secondary deviance of stuttering.Thus showing that societal reaction, prom oted by a concern about particular forms of deviance can actually produce those forms of deviance. contrastingly there are critiques of Lemert and Beckers studies. Akers (1967) criticises both Becker and Lemert for presenting individuals as powerless it make decisions or take control of their own identity. Deviance, correspond to Akers, is not something which happens to an individual, but a choice an individual makes.Goffman (1961) substantiates the idea of labelling theory via his study of a deviant career in mental illness. He stated that the negative label of being mad is oblige on the patient by society and psychiatry, and the patient must eventually adjust to it. However, critics such as Taylor, Walton and Young (1973) argue many forms of behaviour are astray viewed as deviant- so deviants actually live with a go at it that they are breaking the law or social rules before the societal reactions however they still continue to do it.Marxist sociologists lodge Interpretivist of ignoring the role of power in defining crime and deviance. Marxists state that certain groups have the power to exploit what is classified as criminal or socially acceptable. Furthermore, Gouldner (1973) charge interactions sociologists of being fascinated with deviance, and even suggests they approve observing cool deviants, and hanging out with the underworld.In evaluation, it is evident that there are contrasting views on labelling and social influence on deviance. It is as well as evident that interactionist sociologists way on the little things and take the subtile approach to issues such as crime and deviance. They focus on interactions between individuals. one can criticise that by also focusing on the bigger feeling it may be evident how the small interactions affect the larger scale base of operations of society.