Labeling Theory
“Classic” Labeling
Reintegrative Shaming
Defiance Theory
The Social Context of Labeling
Many “early writings”
Lemert in 1950s
Tannenbaum in 1938
Emerged in the 1960s as a force
Social context of the 1960s
“Fit” with the theory
Labeling theory = “ironic twist”
Labeling as a mix of 3 perpectives
Symbolic Interactionism
Gestures/signs to communicate
A single “label” can have many meanings or
“baggage”
Identity (self), “master status,” etc
Conflict Theory
How the law is created and applied
Crime as “Constructed”
All deviance is relative (no absolute evils)
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...
Policy Implications (The 4 Ds)
Diversion
De-institutionalization
Decriminalization
Due Process
How all relate to labeling
Actually part of OJJDP dialogue and policy
in the 1970s (irony here)
Jerome Miller Last One Over the Wall
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
(MICRO)
(MACRO)
Type of Punishment
•Reintegrative
Shaming
•Stigmatizing
Legitimate
Opportunities
Criminal
Subculture
High Crime
Evidence for Reintegrative Shaming?
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 of Braithwaite?
Restorative Justice
Emphasis on “repairing harm”
 Punishment alone is not effective in changing
behavior and is disruptive to community harmony
and good relationships
 Restitution as a means of restoring both parties; goal
of reconciliation and restoration
Community involvement
 Crime control the domain of the community
 Community as facilitator in restorative process
 Crime has social dimensions of responsibility
 Victims are central to the process of resolving a
crime
Lawrence Sherman “Defiance Theory”
Defiance
“the net increase in the prevalence, incidence,
or seriousness of the future offending against a
sanctioning community caused by a proud,
shameless reaction to the administration of a
criminal sanction.”
What causes defiance?
 Sanctions are defined as “unfair”
Sanctioning agent behaves with disrespect for the
offender or his/her group
The sanction is actually unfair (discriminatory,
excessive, undeserved) – COPS
 Offender is poorly bonded to sanctioning agent
or community
Borrowed from social bond theory
 Hostile reaction  the labeling theory irony
again (getting tough produces opposite reaction)