Labeling

Conceptual Framework

At the heart of the labeling approach is the relativization of what counts as criminal or deviant behavior and the rejection of absolutist accounts of these phenomena. According to Becker, deviance is not an inherent property of any activity but rather a label that is bestowed upon it by an audience. Theoretical attention is thus turned to the process of labeling and of how social control agencies can be understood as key actors in the genesis of deviant behavior. There are at least three different ways in which the creation of deviance can be conceptualized. First, and most elementary, it can simply mean that although a great deal of rule-breaking behavior occurs in society, it does not become recognized as deviance until a social group labels it as such. Second, a more complex point, it can also imply that an individual will become a deviant as a result of the social reaction (labeling, ostracism, a police warning, etc.) that accompanies some initial or minor rule infraction. What is suggested here is that the social reaction experienced has powerful implications for the individual's sense of self, with the result that he or she comes to accept the label and becomes increasingly committed to further deviant activity. This particular aspect of the perspective was given its sharpest formulation in the distinction that Lemert drew between primary deviance—widespread acts of rule breaking with no or minimal impact upon one's self-conception—and secondary deviance—where the consequences of being labeled come to the fore and the original reasons for engaging in rule-breaking behavior recede. The majority of the theoretical and empirical explorations of the perspectives are concerned with these two senses of labeling. A third way in which labeling can be seen [Page 414]as constitutive of deviance focuses attention upon the everyday organizational and administrative practices of societies’ agencies of social control. Also influenced by currents stemming from Harold Garfinkel's ethnomethodology, this conception of labeling highlights the contingent nature of criminal statistics. The argument is that the official rates of recorded deviance must be seen as a direct outcome of the everyday administrative activities of the social control agencies that handle and process cases of deviance. In this sense, the official crime statistics bear an unknown relationship to the actual amount of rule breaking that is taking place in any society, and they should instead be viewed as indices of the ways that organizations, such as the police, courts, and drug referral agencies, go about their routine business.

...