Labeling Theory
Review of “Classic”
Labeling
Reflected Appraisals
Reintegrative Shaming
The Classic Labeling
Process
Formal
Sanctions
Primary Deviance
•Most engage in this
•Typically sporadic,
not serious
•Degradation
ceremony
•Stigmatizing
Change in
Self-Concept
•looking glass
self
•hard to resist
formal label
Secondary Deviance
•Caused by new self-image as
criminal or deviant
Criticisms of Labeling
1. Typically history of antisocial behavior
prior to formal labeling
Society doesn’t “identify, tag, and sanction
individuals as deviant in a vacuum.”
2. Controlling initial levels of deviance,
formal sanctions have little (no) effect.
3. No “negotiation,” obsession with “formal”
sanctions...
Matsueda (1992)
Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling,
and Delinquency
Move from formal to informal labels
(appraisals)
Back to “symbolic interactionism” roots
Much more complex, rich
Allows early deviance to play a role
Difference between actual appraisals,
reflected appraisals, and self-appraisals
Formation of the “self”
Transactions
Interactions between 2 or more individuals
 “Role-taking” appraising from others’ shoes:
The situation
Oneself in the situation
Possible lines of action
Role-taking as
socialization
Early socialization
Take the role of significant others who are
present in situations
Later socialization
Take the role of “generalized other,” or the
whole social group
Elements of the “self”
How others actually see you
Actual Appraisals
How you perceive the way others see you
Reflected Appraisals
How you see yourself
Self-Appraisals
Matsueda’s Model
Initial Behaviors
Reflected Appraisals
of Others
Behavior
Actual Appraisal
by Others
John Braithwaite
Austrailian Criminologist
Crime, Shame, and Reintegration
Pretty complex theory (Not parsimonious)
BUT, Central concepts are not that complex
Reintegrative Shaming vs. Stigmatization
Interdependency
Communitarianism
What is “shaming?”
Behaviors (from others) that induce guilt,
shame
snide comment, verbal confrontations
stocks/pillory, the “scarlet letter”
Naval tradition of “captains mask”
In Western society, shaming has become
uncoupled from formal punishment
Offenders privately sent away to warehouses
by corrections or court “officials”
Braithwaite II
Interdependency
“attachment” with social others (indirect control at
micro level)
Communitarianism
similar to “collective efficacy” (control at macro)
In communities that lack collective efficacy, and
among people who are less bonded,
stigmatizing punishment is likely.
Types of “Shaming”
Reintegrative
Love the sinner, hate the sin
Spank the child, but tell them that you still love them
Stigmatizing
no effort made to reconcile the offender with the
community
offender as outcast, “criminal” as master status
degradation ceremonies not followed by ceremonies
to “decertify” deviance
Examples of Shaming
Stigmatizing
United States
Court, prison, etc. (remove and shun from
community)
Reintegrative
Japan
Ceremonies to shame and welcome back
The Model
Interdependency
Communitarianism
Type of
Punishment
•Shaming
•Stigmatizing
Legitimate
Opportunities
Criminal
Subculture
High Crime Rates
Evidence for Reintegrative
Shameing?
Japan vs. U.S. crime rates
Since WWII, Japan
U.S.(others)
Why?
High Interdependency and
Communitarianism
Reintegrative Shaming emphasized
Community has duty to shame and welcome
back transgressors
Implications from
Braithwaite?
Restorative Justice
Victim/Offender mediation
Emphasis on “repairing harm”
Build up community, victims, offender
Shaming Conferences