The social reaction or labelling theory focuses on the negative linguistic characterisation or tendency embraced by a majority group to a minority group based on the deviance from social norms. According to the theory, self-identity, as well as the behaviours of individuals, may be influenced or determined by the perspective of others on them or by the terms others used to describe them. In most cases, this situation happens to the minority groups who emerge as victims to the majority ones. The social reaction theory is also related to the concepts of stereotyping and self-fulfilling prophecy where individuals take in majority views and definitions about them as true in their lives. Social labelling theory has distinguished the causes of both the primary and secondary deviance as associated with biological, sociological, and psychological reasons and also the need for defence and adaptation to social problems and pressures. The concept by Howard Becker has a significant reflection on various issues in criminology such as criminal offenders, victims of crime, and crime control. This essay aims at evaluating the social reaction or labelling theory and its focus on various aspects of criminology.
Social Reaction or Labelling Theory and Criminology-related Issues
According to Rotenberg (1974), social reaction or labelling theory has a processual or phenomenal analysis of the causes of criminal behaviour or deviance through instilling a focus on the reaction and not the action. In this case, social labelling among individuals in a society contributes largely to their self-labeling and association with an action. For instance, a person from a group stereotyped to be associated with a specific crime may admit to have committed a crime after being convicted despite knowing deep down in their heart that he/she is not a criminal (Rotenberg, 1974). Cohen (1967) found that social reaction theory plays a critical role in the definition as well as suppression of deviance and also social solidarity. Labelling others as associated with a certain deviant behaviours prompts them to produce various responses which affect the “criminal offender’s” self-reflection, crime victim’s perception of others, and the strategies embraced to control a certain crime (Cohen 1967). In this light, the criminological perspective by Becker (2003) focuses on various significant criminology issues in different ways.
Firstly, social labelling theory essentially focuses on the relationship between the majority and minority groups in the society on the basis of deviance from the norms. The perspective focuses on the ‘criminal offender’ as the minority group under the influence of others in the society. According to Becker (2003), a criminal offender is likely to internalise the labelling aspects directed to them by the majority group. In this case, a criminal offender reacts from the labelling by either accepting or refusing the associated claim. Rotenberg (1974) took labelling action as a source of defence or adaptation as well as attack by a criminal offender. Being associated with a crime prompts an individual to develop a certain response towards the stereotype established. In most cases, offenders may end up showing defensive or attacking behaviours towards those associating them with deviance (Downes and Rock 1971). On the same note, individuals may give in and decide to adapt from the stereotype piled on them by others in the society (Besemer, Farrington and Bijleveld 2017). Despite the end-results, social labelling theory depicts the self-fulfilling prophecy by eventually bringing specific results among the offenders. In social labelling, an individual who is aware of the stereotyping inflicted on them by the society members may opt to accept a claim, even if it is false (Downes and Rock 1971). Although the theory has significantly lost its impacts in criminology today, Plummer (2011) found that labelling of individuals as associated with deviant behaviour largely affects their confidence, self-esteem, and perception of self. This situation commonly appears when an individual occupies a social group or status that is negatively viewed by the majority of others (Rotenberg 1974). In such a situation, a ‘criminal offender’ only resorts to developing adaptation to the stereotypes. However, in an intensified case, Becker (2003) found that individuals develop defensive and attacking mechanisms to offer protection as well as minimise the impacts of stereotypes or self-fulfilling prophecy.
Secondly, the social reaction theory also focuses on the victims of crime in a significant way. According to Kenney (2002), the social labelling criminological perspective takes the victims of crime as a critical part of the whole social situation associated with a crime or deviant behaviour. In the execution of a crime, the victims encounter various experiences such as loss of property, loss of loved ones, injuries, and even traumatic episodes (Downes and Rock 1971). As a result, the victims to a certain crime develop various impacts on the behaviours, ability to adjust, and the identities of those involved or concerned with the action (Kenney 2002). According to Kenney (2002), the victims of crime may be the family, extended family, friends, community, or even the acquaintances. A victim may develop a negative perception on the person related to committing a certain crime that affected them either directly or indirectly. For instance, in the death of a loved one, a victim of the murder crime may end up developing feelings of hatred, vengefulness, hostility and dislikes to those involved. In this case, the theory critically relies on the self-fulfilling prophecy (Becker 2003) in that individuals associated with a crime may end up being the real criminal offenders. However, the situation may also take a contrary path in which an individual associated with a crime turns out not the real criminal offender (Besemer, Farrington and Bijleveld 2017). Regardless, many crime victims, in most cases, develop a negative attitude and feelings towards those associated with an action. Kenney (2002) also asserts that the victims of crime develop social reactions that essential attribute from their experiences with the crime and also the individuals thought to have been involved in its execution.
Lastly, the social reaction theory is also related to the issue of crime control. According to Wellford (1975), the social labelling concept is an integral part in the determination of the criminal law-violating and deviant behaviours and the strategies that are applicable in controlling crimes from a societal perspective. The theory sensitises on the application of empirical research on a certain observed or assumed behaviour in the society (Wellford 1975). Where individuals are labelled and stereotyped as associated with certain crimes or actions, criminologists take note of the stereotypes and characteristics branded by the society. Having such information and details, criminologists can easily develop a foundation for the research of a specific group or crime to determine whether or not individuals are criminal offenders (Besemer, Farrington and Bijleveld 2017). According to Besemer, Farrington, and Bijleveld (2017), criminal justice interventions lead to the amplification of offending behaviour by expounding it and determining its actual causes. In this case, Besemer, Farrington, and Bijleveld (2017) felt that children whose parents were convicted of various crimes have a higher chance of falling into the same behaviours as their parents. Therefore, labelling others as associated with certain behaviour may lead to actual results. In criminology, researchers use this notion to determine various strategies that may prove applicable in controlling the occurrence of predictable deviant behaviours among a group in the society that is perceived to be risky, for example, unemployed and uneducated youths (Besemer, Farrington and Bijleveld 2017). The labelling theory also acknowledges that there is an intergenerational transmission of deviance behaviours from parents to their children (Besemer, Farrington and Bijleveld 2017). Therefore, criminologists deploy the theory in their attempt to discover new ways to control crimes before they take place in society. However, according to Plummer (2011), the theory has significantly lost its impact and sense in criminology and crime control. Social labelling theory is associated with influence and determination of deviance behaviour among the minorities by the majority group (Becker 2003). Research has shown that the notions of stereotypes and self-fulfilling prophecy, which are associated with social labelling theory, cannot be fully relied upon in the determination of the actual behaviours of a person or a group of people (Plummer 2011). In some case, individuals may accept and adapt to the pressures inflicted to them by the majority and end up accepting their involvement with a crime even if one is innocent.
Conclusion
The social reaction or labelling theory is a criminological perspective that was critically prominent among criminologists such as Stanley Cohen and Howard Becker in the 1960s. The theory is largely known for its focus on the social reaction that appears as a result of an action. In this light, labelling theory does not focus on action in its research about criminology and its impacts on the society. Labelling theory focuses on the behaviour in the society whereby the major groups tend to instil a negative label, self-fulfilling prophecies, and stereotypes on the minorities, who are thought to be deviant from norms or the normal social behaviours. The theory also addresses various criminology-related issues criminal offenders, victims of crime, and crime control.
References
Becker, H., 2003. Labelling theory. Key Ideas in Sociology, pp. 134-139.
Besemer, S., Farrington, D.P. and Bijleveld, C.C., 2017. Labeling and intergenerational transmission of crime: The interaction between criminal justice intervention and a convicted parent. PloS one, 12(3), p. e0172419.
Cohen, A. S., 1967. Deviance and control (Foundations of Modern Sociology).
Downes, D. and Rock, P., 1971. Social reaction to deviance and its effects on crime and criminal careers. The British journal of sociology, 22(4), pp. 351-364.
Kenney, J.S., 2002. victims of crime and labeling theory: a parallel process?. Deviant Behavior, 23(3), pp. 235-265.
Plummer, K., 2011. The labelling perspective forty years on. In Langweiliges Verbrechen VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 83-101.
Rotenberg, M., 1974. Self‐Labelling: A Missing Link in the ‘Societal Reaction’Theory of Deviance. The Sociological Review, 22(3), pp. 335-354.
Wellford, C., 1975. Labelling theory and criminology: An assessment. Social Problems, 22(3), pp. 332-345.
