SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
ANNUAL
REVIEWS
Further
20:50
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles
• Top downloaded articles
• Our comprehensive search
Societal Reactions to Deviance
Ryken Grattet
Department of Sociology, University of California, Davis, California 95616;
email: rtgrattet@ucdavis.edu
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011. 37:185–204
Keywords
First published online as a Review in Advance on
April 20, 2011
labeling, social control, stigma, medicalization, criminalization,
governmentality
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at
soc.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:
10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150012
c 2011 by Annual Reviews.
Copyright All rights reserved
0360-0572/11/0811-0185$20.00
Abstract
A common complaint about the sociology of deviance, particularly the
perspective known as labeling theory or the societal reaction perspective, is that the field is dead. However, considerable evidence suggests
that the core themes of societal reaction work live on in several areas of
contemporary scholarship. After identifying and describing three key
strands of the early societal reaction perspective, I consider how those
strands are reflected in more recent work, much of which does not
explicitly reference the earlier tradition. I identify the ways that recent
scholarship builds upon and yet extends the earlier societal reaction tradition. I close by describing three trajectories emerging in recent work
that should focus future inquiry: the contingent effects of labeling, the
causes of gaps between social control discourse and practice, and the
diffusion of social control practices from deviants to nondeviants.
185
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
A CASE OF “OBLITERATION
BY INCORPORATION”?
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
In the late 1960s and 1970s, the societal reaction
perspective (also known as labeling theory)1
was a lively area of American sociology. Several
classic monographs on societal reactions to
deviance were published during this period
(Becker 1963, Erikson 1966, Gusfield 1963,
Matza 1969, Scheff 1999 [1966]); influential
articles on the subject were published in
respected journals, and its core contentions
were vigorously debated by influential scholars
located in top sociology departments. By the
mid-1990s, the societal reaction perspective,
along with the entire subfield of the sociology
of deviance, was declared dead (Paternoster &
Iovanni 1989, Petrunik 1980) and subsequently
provided with a book-length obituary (Sumner
1994). Although the perspective has waned
in terms of explicit citations and the use of
reactionist terms and concepts (Best 2004),
the central strands of the perspective live on
in cognate areas of inquiry, specifically in
law, medical sociology, punishment, social
problems, social control, and to a lesser extent,
criminology. Invoking Merton’s phrase, Goode
(2002, p. 115) argues that deviance scholarship
more generally was subjected to “obliteration
by incorporation,” which meant that although
explicit links to the earlier tradition have been
omitted from recent sociological scholarship,
it has been carried forward under different
auspices. Similarly, Plummer (2001) wrote
that the societal reaction approach to deviance
is not dead, but rather has become a “quiet
orthodoxy” among sociologists.
To date, however, there has been little attempt to identify the links between the older
strands of societal reaction perspective and
newer work. In this review, I describe three
key strands of the societal reaction perspective:
1
The name “labeling theory” is more frequently used to describe this tradition. However, as I discuss below, labeling
(and its causes and consequences) is only one of three strands
of societal reaction work. Characterizing the perspective as
focused on the “societal reactions” to deviance better encompasses all three strands of work.
186
Grattet
historical analyses of the development of deviant labels, studies of the consequences of labeling, and research into the substantive (extradisciplinary) influences on the operation of
formal social control organizations. I briefly
document these strands in earlier classic works
on societal reaction, and I describe how they
have been reconsidered and expanded in more
recent studies, many of which do not explicitly
link to the earlier tradition. I conclude by discussing how more recent scholarship has broadened and qualified some of the contentions of
the earlier work and by describing the trajectories contained within more recent work that
provide a focus for future scholarship.
THREE STRANDS OF SOCIETAL
REACTION RESEARCH
The societal reaction perspective views deviance as a product of the social interaction
between individuals and various types of
audiences, such as peer groups, anonymous
onlookers, and representatives of formal
social control organizations. Deviance is a
designation—a label—that is attached to some
individuals and not to others. Social reaction
proponents departed from earlier approaches
by placing attention on the psychological and
social consequences experienced by individuals
labeled deviant. Early proponents did not initially use the terms societal reaction or labeling
to describe their perspective (Becker 1973),
which makes identifying the precise origins of
the perspective difficult.2 Nonetheless, a major
point of departure for subsequent work was
Edwin Lemert’s 1951 book, Social Pathology.
2
Some have located the interactionist roots of societal reaction theory in George Herbert Mead’s (1918) essay on “The
Psychology of Punitive Justice,” which focused on the social significance of community and legal responses to criminals and other kinds of social enemies (see also Schur 1969).
Others point to Frank Tannenbaum’s (1938) Crime and the
Community, which focused on the role of “tagging” young
delinquents in the criminal justice system. According to Tannenbaum, the first imposition of a label—a “dramatization of
evil”—sets in motion a psychological process by which the
juvenile comes to self-identify as a criminal.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
Social Pathology sketches a broad analytical
framework on deviance and social control,
which Lemert envisioned as a counter to
the biological, psychological, psychiatric,
social disorganization, and other prevailing
etiological approaches to social pathologies.
Lemert (1974, p. 458) later wrote that his aim
in developing the societal reaction approach
was “to show how deviance was shaped and
stabilized by efforts to eliminate or ameliorate
it.” Lemert (1951, p. 603) regarded deviance
as “polygenetic”; in other words, the “original
causes and antecedents of deviant behaviors
are many and diversified.” In doing so, he set
aside the pursuit of further etiological analyses
of deviant behavior, arguing that the sociologically significant aspect of deviant behavior lies
not in understanding involvement in deviant
activities, some portion of which never rises to
the attention or concern of others, but in those
circumstances in which the reaction of others
results in a reorganization of the self. Lemert
(1951, p. 640) called the former “primary”
deviation, and the latter—the sociologically significant part—he called “secondary” deviation.
When a person begins to employ his deviant behavior or a role based upon it as a means of defense,
attack, or adjustment to the overt and problems
created by the consequent societal reaction to him,
his deviation is secondary. (italics in original)
In the early 1960s, the perspective was elaborated in a series of key papers and books. John
Kitsuse (1962) published “Societal Reaction to
Deviant Behavior: Problems of Theory and
Method,” which raised central theoretical issues and methodological concerns, noting that
[a] sociological theory of deviance must focus specifically upon the interactions which
not only define behaviors as deviant but also
organize and activate the application of sanctions by individuals, groups, or agencies. For
in modern society, the socially significant differentiation of deviants from the nondeviant
population is increasingly contingent upon
circumstances of situation, place, social and
personal biography, and the bureaucratically
organized activities of agencies of control.
(Kitsuse 1962, p. 256)
Shortly thereafter, Howard Becker (1963,
p. 9) published Outsiders, which defined deviance as “not a quality of the act the person
commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to the
‘offender.’” He emphasized deviance as a social
construction rather than an inherent quality of
particular actions. Becker (1963, p. 170) also
amplified the attitude of earlier research that
deviants were best studied naturalistically—
“in their natural habitat”—rather than through
surveys or official records, as earlier social
pathology research had tended to do. The naturalistic approach linked societal reaction proponents most clearly to the interpretivist tradition in American sociology, with roots in the
Chicago School and its West Coast manifestation in the 1950s and 1960s (Lemert 1974). It
was a direct challenge to the prevailing scholarship and popular wisdom about crime and other
kinds of deviance—that these subjects could
be understood through an assessment of psychological precursors or as a result of structural conditions and where the central question
was etiological (i.e., what caused someone to be
deviant?).
At the same time, Erving Goffman (1963)
published Stigma: Notes on the Management of
Spoiled Identity, which introduced the influential concept of stigma to describe the ways
that occupants of certain social categories—the
mentally ill, the disabled, and racial and ethnic
minorities—are discredited and isolated in society and social interaction. Thomas Scheff (1999
[1966]) followed soon after with Being Mentally
Ill: A Sociological Theory, which expounds a
labeling perspective on mental illness. Scheff
put forward several hypotheses about “residual
rule-breaking,” his term for deviant behavior
that does not fit into existing categories like
crime, sexual perversion, and poor manners and
that includes behavior that has the potential
to be labeled mental illness. Among the most
controversial were his propositions that
www.annualreviews.org • Societal Reactions to Deviance
187
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
“labeling is the single most important cause
of careers of residual deviance” (Scheff 1999
[1966], p. 92) and that residual rule-breaking
of persons of low social status is more likely to
be labeled than that of persons of high social
status.
Many of these early societal reaction
proponents trace their perspective to symbolic
interactionism (Schur 1969), which gained
popularity in the 1950s and 1960s in response
to the dominance of structural functionalism
during the previous decades (Fine 1993, Pfohl
1994). However, at least some of the early work
adopted a more macrosociological orientation;
for example, Kai Erikson’s (1966) Wayward Puritans about the Salem witch trials drew heavily
from Durkheimian concepts of ritual and social
solidarity. Joseph Gusfield’s (1963) Symbolic
Crusade, a study of the temperance movement
in the United States, was strongly influenced by
conflict theory. Stanley Cohen’s (1972) study
of the mods and the rockers in 1960s Britain,
Folk Devils and Moral Panics, focused on mass
media and strain theory. John Lofland’s (1969)
Deviance and Identity merged interactionism
with an emphasis on macrostructural conflicts
and opportunity theory.
Criticisms of societal reaction research
erupted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The
variety and depth of these criticisms, as well as
the defense and modification of the perspective by its supporters, could be the subject of
a much longer discussion (see Best 2004). A
summary of critics’ charges includes the following: The societal reaction perspective was
not a theory because most or all of its central arguments did not lead to testable propositions about the causes of deviance (Akers
1968, Becker 1973, Bernstein et al. 1977, Bordua 1967, Gibbs 1966); many of the core concepts were poorly defined (Gibbs 1966, Gove
1970, Manning 1973); the ideas that labeling
results in subsequent deviance and that the social attributes of offenders are more important
than the actual behavior of the labeled individual are empirically invalid (Gove 1970; Tittle
1975a,b); the perspective was freighted with political and moral undertones—its proponents
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
188
Grattet
identified with and sometimes championed
the deviants and demonized the social control agents (Liazos 1972); it unreflectively expressed 1960s countercultural attitudes toward
minor deviance and greater personal liberty
(Hendershott 2002, Sumner 1994), and yet did
not go far enough in terms of developing a
more radical critique of social control institutions (Gouldner 1968, Sumner 1994); it often
advocated a radical constructionism in which
an individual’s actual behavior was deemed irrelevant to the labeling process (Akers 1972,
Gove 1972); and it produced many facile analyses of deviants and the labeling process (Lemert
1981).3 These criticisms and the debates that
followed them were often bitter in tone, and
three decades later it is clear that each side
frequently misconstrued, mischaracterized, or
narrowly represented the other’s point. Responding to critics, Lemert (1981, p. 285) wrote
“in the context of controversial and sometimes
polemic discussions, labeling theory often appears to be a creation of its critics bent on destruction of that which never was.”
As Best (2004) documents, the career of
the concept of deviance took a downward turn
after the criticisms of the 1970s and so did
explicit discussions of labeling/societal reaction
concepts, especially within mainstream sociological journals. However, themes present in
early societal reaction theory and research are
nonetheless reflected in scholarship on contemporary topics related to crime, law, mental
illness, social control, and many other areas.
Specifically, three strands of research provide
a sense of the scope of societal reaction scholarship.4 The first strand includes historical and
3
Most analyses in the societal reaction perspective did not
embrace radical constructionism, denying entirely the role
of behavior and objective influences on the labeling process.
Moreover, it is not essential to hold out the individuals labeled deviant as heroic figures and the social control agents
as evildoers. And if overly simplistic analyses were a serious
criticism, then many other perspectives in sociology would
be equally problematic.
4
I am not the first to identify this trinity of strands. “There
were three pathways set out in Lemert’s work: the one
led to an exploration of the structure and process of social
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
comparative analyses of the development of
deviant labels (Becker 1963; Chambliss 1964;
Gusfield 1963, 1968; Lemert 1970); the second
is work on the dynamics and consequences of
stigma and labeling (Becker 1963, Goffman
1963, Lemert 1951, Lofland 1969, Matza 1969,
Scheff 1974, Sykes & Matza 1957); and the third
focuses on the operation of social control agencies as they process deviants (Cicourel 1976,
Kitsuse & Cicourel 1963, Marx 1981, Sudnow
1965).
The Development of Labels
The first strand of the societal reaction tradition that survived the criticisms of the 1970s
was analysis of the historical development of
deviant labels, a research program that flourished during the 1980s and 1990s (Best 2004,
Chambliss & Zatz 1993, Galliher & Cross
1983, Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce 1988). The
largest portion of this work has been undertaken as research into the socially constructed
nature of “social problems” (Schneider 1985,
Spector & Kitsuse 1977). Like societal reaction
scholarship before it, social problems work is
concerned with the social processes that lead to
the definition of some condition as a problem
and, often along the way, some persons (i.e.,
deviants) as the source of that problem. Social
constructionism was always an implicit part
of the earlier societal reaction theory, but
the social problems literature has expanded
and clarified the theoretical vocabulary for
social constructionism, raised new theoretical
challenges, and broadened the focus beyond
the consideration of the construction of deviant labels (Holstein & Miller 2003, Miller &
Holstein 1993). The key studies of the social
construction and “discovery” of social problems
control and social control agencies; the second, and certainly
the pathway down which most trod, led to an exploration of
the social psychological impact of reactions to initially erstwhile and unpatterned deviations; the final pathway, perhaps
the least explored, demanded an exploration of the historical
and comparative themes alluded to and partially developed
in Lemert’s studies of alcoholism and stuttering” (Manning
1973, p. 124).
examined child abuse (Pfohl 1977), hyperactivity (Conrad 1975), spousal abuse (Tierney
1982), drunk driving (Gusfield 1981), stalking,
hate crimes, wilding (Best 1999), and Satanism
(Richardson et al. 1991). This work often
focused on the role of “moral entrepreneurs,”
including social movements (Tierney 1982),
professionals (Pfohl 1977), and the media (Best
1999) in constructing deviants and victims as
well as the social problems they reflect.
At roughly the same time, research on medicalization also expanded with studies of the invention of medical labels for deviants including alcoholics (Schneider 1978), opiate addicts
(Conrad & Schneider 1980), veterans suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (Scott 1990),
compulsive gamblers (Rosecrance 1985, Rossol
2003), and transsexuals (Billings & Urban 1982,
King 1987). Conrad (1992) summarized the
major accomplishments of this literature in an
Annual Review of Sociology article in which he delineated between the medicalization of deviant
behavior and the medicalization of “natural life
processes,” such as sexual dysfunction, childbirth, child development, premenstrual syndrome, menopause, and aging. In doing so,
Conrad shows how many of the same principles and techniques used to control deviants
spread into the management of the problems
of nondeviants as well. Medical knowledge operates interinstitutionally, across different social control settings, from correctional systems
to work places to sports and schools, in what
Conrad (1979) refers to as medical “collaboration.” The examination of medical labeling
in different institutional settings was an important shift because it redirected attention to the
broader systems of medical knowledge that give
rise to categories and designations of illness. In
effect, it situated the rise (and, sometimes, the
fall) of medical labels within broader changes
in the ideology, technologies, and social organization of medicine in society (Conrad 2007,
Starr 1982).
A small body of literature on moral panics
also accumulated over the past two decades.
The term moral panic originated in Stanley
Cohen’s (1972) study of the societal reaction
www.annualreviews.org • Societal Reactions to Deviance
189
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
to the mods and the rockers in Britain during
the 1960s. A moral panic describes a situation in
which a particular group of individuals—often
individuals who are already socially marginal
(e.g., young people, women, racial and ethnic
minorities, the poor)—become seen as a threat
to collective, or at least widely held, values
(Cohen 1972, 2002). Moral panics occur during periods of social change, revealing a social
and moral order in crisis (Young 2009). What
defines a societal reaction as a moral panic is
that the panic response is demonstrably disproportionate to the threat posed by the deviants.5 Moral panics are also defined by volatility; they emerge and spread rapidly, but are
short-lived and fade quickly from public memory. Moral panics are constructed around the
actions of “folk devils” by the media, social
movements, experts, elites, and other moral entrepreneurs. “Folk devils are created, deviant
stereotypes identifying the enemy, the source
of the threat, selfish, evil wrongdoers who are
responsible for the trouble” (Goode & BenYehuda 1994). “Folk devils” is a sociological
construct, rather than a label used by the exponents of a given moral panic—a kind of metalabel that captures a type of societal reaction
to deviance. The concepts of moral panics and
folk devils have been applied to societal reactions to Chicano gangs (Zatz 1987), the early
modern witch craze (Ben-Yehuda 1985), drug
use (Goode & Ben-Yehuda 1994), sex offenders ( Jenkins 1998), school shootings (Burns &
Crawford 1999), satanic ritual abuse ( Jenkins
1992, Victor 1998), and white collar crime (Levi
2009). As David Garland (2008, p. 9) wrote,
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
The concept of “moral panic” has had an enormous impact, not just on sociology—where
it has spawned a small subdiscipline of moral
5
Some ambiguity has dogged research on moral panics, which
Cohen acknowledged in the recent reprint of his classic work
on the mods and the rockers (Cohen 2002). Among other
things, critics have questioned “what counts as a disproportionate reaction to a threatening group?” (see Garland
2008) and “what level of consensus is required for a particular
episode to be considered a panic response?” (see McRobbie
& Thorton 1995).
190
Grattet
panic studies—but also on the language of cultural debate and on the practice of journalists
and politicians. The claim that a social reaction is, in fact, merely a moral panic, has become a familiar move in any public conversation about social problems or societal risks.
Apart from its impact in public settings
(Altheide 2009), the study of moral panics
places the development of deviant labels in a
broader societal context, focusing on the symbolic universes and moral boundaries that are
invoked to render certain groups folk devils and
threatening enemies of society.
As research on medicalization and moral
panics expanded, so too did work on criminalization. In her Annual Review of Sociology essay, Valerie Jenness (2004, p. 164) summarized
these developments, concluding that
sociologists interested in criminalization now
study an increasingly wide array of domains of
social life, including empirical topics as diverse
as the criminalization of computer (ab)use in
the modern era, the willful termination of
pregnancy prior to quickening in the second half of the nineteenth century, stalking
strangers and lovers in the 1980s and 1990s,
routine and rare expressions of bigotry in the
United States and abroad, practices falling under the rubric of “female genital cutting” in
the United States, and sexualized interactions
in the workplace in both the United States and
France.
As opposed to more general work on the
construction of social problems, moral panics,
and medicalization, research on criminalization
has been more firmly institutionally centered
on law, specifically crime legislation and court
rulings. To account for criminalization, older
ideas about moral entrepreneurs (Becker 1963,
Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce 1988), status politics (Dichiara & Galliher 1994, Gusfield 1963),
and changes in economic structures (Chambliss 1964, Jenness & Grattet 1996) have been
blended with social movements theory ( Jenness
& Broad 1997), law and society perspectives
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
(Chambliss 1979, Chambliss & Zatz 1993,
Hagan 1980), and institutionalist theory in the
sociology of organizations (Frank et al. 2009,
Grattet et al. 1998). Jenness & Grattet’s (2001)
Making Hate a Crime relies on these latter perspectives, by focusing on the creation, diffusion, and institutionalization of the legal concept of hate crime, as well as how the concept
of hate crime took on different meanings within
the antihate crime movement, state legislatures,
courts, and ultimately, law enforcement.
Although explicit reference to earlier work
on societal reaction is increasingly rare, scholarship on the development of deviant labels has
grown enormously over the past three decades.
Societal reaction concepts have been incorporated into empirical studies of the construction
of social problems, medicalization, and criminalization. Much of this work takes place in subfields such as social problems, law and society,
medical sociology, and criminology. Even the
research that remains most squarely within the
sociology of deviance—moral panics—has become intertwined with research on subcultures
and mass media.
Explanatory models of why labels develop
were never particularly sophisticated in early
societal reaction work, which focused on the
role of moral entrepreneurs, status politics, and,
somewhat vaguely conceived, social changes.
Influenced by cultural theorists, particularly
Foucault, social movement theory, constructionism, and neo-institutionalism have broadened the understanding of the possible sources
of new labels for deviants as well as the processes
involved in their development, diffusion, and
change. In other words, the migration of this
research program into other subfields beyond
the sociology of deviance has actually helped
bring fresh perspectives to the topic. Some similar patterns emerge from the second strand of
the societal reaction perspective.
The Consequences of Labeling
Whereas the first strand of the societal reaction perspective is concerned with why
labels emerge and take the form they do, the
second strand focuses on the consequences for
individuals of having a label applied to them.
The largest portion of this strand has been
devoted to research on the concept of “stigma”
(Pescosolido & Martin 2007). In their Annual
Review of Sociology essay on “Conceptualizing
Stigma,” Link & Phelan (2001, p. 363) note
that “research since Goffman’s seminal essay
has been incredibly productive, leading to elaborations, conceptual refinements, and repeated
demonstrations of the negative impact of stigma
on the lives of the stigmatized” (see also Major
& O’Brien 2005, Pescosolido et al. 2008).
In recent years, analyses of the dynamics and consequences of stigma have proliferated in medical and mental health (Quinn
& Chaudoir 2009), epidemiology and public
health (particularly on AIDS) (Phelan et al.
2008, Scambler 2009), management (Clair et al.
2005, Devers et al. 2009), gender and sexuality
(Hallgrimsdottir et al. 2008, Herek 2007,
Wright et al. 2007), and disability and the body
(Crosnoe et al. 2008, Green et al. 2005), as well
as research into how stigma is manifest in nonWestern sociocultural contexts in relation to
medical and mental illness (Betancourt et al.
2010, Nahm 2009). Research has focused on
how being labeled mentally ill activates stereotypes and prejudices, which in turn lead to an
eroding of the labeled person’s sense of self and
to discrimination and social exclusion (Hinshaw
& Stier 2008, Rosenfield 1997). Work has also
focused on how sexual orientation, gender, and
race can amplify stigma as well as how stigma
is shaped by interactional, organizational, and
broader cultural contexts (Pescosolido et al.
2008). Other work examines how labeled individuals resist stigma (Thoits 2011b).
In response to criticisms that labeling does
not appear to consistently predict further deviance and that the consequences of labeling are
not always negative (see Gove 1970), a series of
papers by Thoits (1985, 2011a) and Link (Link
1987; Link et al. 1988, 1989) introduced a more
nuanced theorization of labeling processes in
relation to mental illness. Thoits (1985) argued that earlier work, particularly by Scheff
(1999 [1966]), overemphasized the role of social
www.annualreviews.org • Societal Reactions to Deviance
191
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
control agents and institutions in the labeling
process. Most people seeking mental health services do so voluntarily, not because they are labeled by a social control agent. As individuals
experience emotional distress, they rely upon
widely held understandings of mental illness
to interpret their own behavior. Thoits argued
that this “self-labeling” is more consequential
for the emergence of a deviant identity than
is labeling by others. Continuing this line of
inquiry, recent work by Thoits (2011a) shows
that self-labeling is contingent upon an individual’s social supports and the seriousness of his or
her mental health issues. Specifically, individuals are more likely to seek mental health services
when their condition is serious and when they
perceive themselves to be surrounded by a supportive social network.
Similarly, Link and colleagues (1989) put
forward a modified labeling theory of mental
illness. This model rejects the simplistic formulation that labeling causes mental illness. In
doing so, it focuses on the kinds of intervening
processes and factors that increase or decrease
the negative consequences of labeling. Link and
colleagues showed that the negative effects of
labeling were contingent upon the beliefs that
labeled persons hold about mental illness and
its social status, based upon their own socialization, as well as whether they believe they are
likely to be rejected, excluded, and marginalized
when their mental condition is exposed. If individuals fear that they will be discredited and devalued because of being labeled, then they may
try to keep secret their mental illness and withdraw from social interactions that risk revealing
it. If they withdraw from social interaction, hold
secret their mental status, and subscribe to the
belief that their mental illness makes them “less
socially fit,” then they are at greater risk for recurrence of the baseline mental issues that lay
behind their decision to seek treatment in the
first place. Thus, the negative consequences of
labeling are mediated by how the labeled individual responds to being labeled (Link et al.
1989). The negative effects of labeling, including social exclusion and rejection by others as
well as feelings of shame, low self-esteem, and
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
192
Grattet
depression, are contingent upon prior socialization and beliefs about mental illness, as well as
the expectations of members of the labeled individual’s social networks and the wider society
(Link 1987).
Whereas sociological and interdisciplinary
work on medical and mental illness has grown
rapidly in the past 20 years, the elaboration of
the analysis of stigma in relation to crime has
not. Instead, a considerably smaller amount of
attention has been paid to alternative ways of
conceiving the consequences of labeling. Paternoster & Iovanni (1989) offered a review
and synthesis of criminological research on the
effects of status characteristics on labeling—
which they refer to as the “status characteristics
hypothesis” in labeling theory—and the effects
of labeling on subsequent involvement in deviance, which, following Lemert (1951), they
call the “secondary deviation hypothesis.”
They argue that, despite the critical responses of the 1970s, most of the theoretical
nuances of societal reaction arguments remain
untested. Paralleling the modifications to labeling theory in the context of mental illness,
they reformulate both the status characteristics and secondary deviation hypotheses, building in more contingency, such that how status characteristics, like race, social class, and
gender, affect labeling and how labeling affects
subsequent involvement in deviance is dependent upon attributes of offenders, their offending backgrounds, and environmental and organizational conditions. They conclude that the
potential of labeling remains yet untapped, arguing that “work conducted thus far says more
about its critics than about labeling theory itself” (Paternoster & Iovanni 1989, p. 389).
Chiricos et al. (2007) summarizes recent research that continues Paternoster & Iovanni’s
(1989) emphasis on the contingent effects of
labeling (see also Bernburg & Krohn 2003).
Chiricos et al. (2007) argue that in the traditional labeling perspective there are two underlying processes that can affect a deviant’s response to being labeled: identity transformation
and structural impediments. The first is that the
labeling process produces a transformation in
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
identity, as the deviant begins to see him or
herself as an offender and acts accordingly—
an idea that derives from Lemert’s (1951) discussion of secondary deviation. For example,
Matsueda’s (1992) study of delinquents highlighted the role of parents (as opposed to official
social control agents) as crucial in the process
of identity change. He showed that “reflected
appraisals,” judgments by significant others regarding a juvenile’s behavior, affect the juvenile’s self-conception and, in turn, the juvenile’s
involvement in delinquency. “Those who see
themselves (from the standpoint of others) as
persons who engage in delinquent behavior in
certain situations are more likely to engage in
delinquency” (Matsueda 1992, p. 1582).
While labeling can produce a transformation of identity, it can also introduce structural impediments to a conventional life. Recent work in criminology from a life course
perspective has emphasized structural impediments. For example, Sampson & Laub (1997,
p. 6) contend that there is only “one theoretical
perspective in criminology that is inherently developmental in nature—labeling theory.” They
put forward the notion of “cumulative disadvantage,” which refers to the consequences of
iterative involvement in criminal sanctioning
over the life course.
Cumulative
disadvantage
is
generated
most explicitly by the negative structural
consequences of criminal offending and
official sanctions for life chances. The theory
specifically suggests a “snowball” effect—that
adolescent delinquency and its negative
consequences (e.g., arrest, official labeling,
incarceration) increasingly “mortgage” one’s
future, especially later life chances molded by
school and employment. (Sampson & Laub
1997, p. 15)
The structural consequences they refer to
represent products of labeling that, in turn,
make desistance more difficult. The obstacles
faced by convicted felons in reintegrating is a
central theme of recent research on mass incarceration (Clear 2007, Petersilia 2003). For
example, Manza & Uggen (2006) focus on the
consequences of felon disenfranchisement for
both the felons themselves and for the larger
political process. Western (2006) examines the
effects of incarceration on work, marriage, and
family outcomes, all potential turning points in
the process of desistence and all of which are
made more challenging by incarceration. Foster
& Hagan (2007) show how the stigma and social
exclusion of incarcerated parents limit the life
chances of their children. Perhaps most powerfully, Pager’s (2007) book Marked, which makes
no explicit links to the societal reaction tradition, examines the effect of a criminal record on
employment outcomes. She uses the concept of
a “negative credential” to describe these effects.
“Negative credentials are those official markers that restrict access and opportunity rather
than enabling them” (Pager 2007, p. 32). She
finds that negative credentialing is particularly
consequential for blacks—that black offenders
have “two strikes” against them when it comes
to securing a job by virtue of their race and
their criminal histories. Pager’s work is also
useful for countering the simplistic treatments
of the secondary deviation hypothesis: that labeling leads directly to further involvement in
deviance. She details the way criminal labeling
affects employment opportunities, which leads
to greater likelihood of reinvolvement in crime
(see also Uggen 2000). The lesson, which resonates with the research on mental illness on the
contingency of labeling effects, is that labeling
produces intervening processes that themselves
may generate further involvement or, in some
cases, desistance.
The Operation of Social
Control Organizations
Whereas research on the consequences of labeling focuses on the aftermath of labeling,
a third strand of societal reaction theory focuses on how agents of social control organizations label particular individuals and thereby
seek to manage deviance. Almost all this work
has focused on criminal justice organizations
rather than on medical institutions or other
www.annualreviews.org • Societal Reactions to Deviance
193
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
institutions of social control.6 A key point of
origin for this work is Kitsuse & Cicourel’s
(1963) article “A Note on the Uses of Official Statistics,” which criticized the various
preexisting approaches to deviance—roughly
structural, learning, and subcultural—for failing to differentiate between “behavior producing processes” (p. 132) and the organizational
responses to such behavior. The result of this
failure was that preexisting work ignored the
organizational processes that generated official
statistics, essentially assuming that official rates
of deviance represent the rate of a particular
conduct. “What such statistics do reflect, however, are specifically organizational contingencies which condition the application of specific
statutes to actual conduct through the interpretations, decisions and actions of law enforcement personnel” (Kitsuse & Cicourel 1963,
p. 137). This study inspired work that examines
how the labeling and punishing of deviants by
social control institutions is influenced by organizational imperatives, alternative agendas, and
informal relations between officials within social control organizations.
A second foundational study is David
Sudnow’s (1965) work on “normal crimes,”
which shows how prosecutors and public
defenders operate as a “work group,” collaborating to match an offender’s conduct to a
specific legal category, based upon emergent
folk understandings about which kind of
offender and behavior goes with which kind
of category. Such strategies arise in the course
of long-term organizational arrangements
in which public defenders and prosecutors
have a common interest in routinizing work.
Emphasizing the ambiguity of definitions of
deviance, the discretion of officials in assigning
labels to behavior, and the organizational
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
6
One exception is recent work by Thoits (2005, Thoits &
Evenson 2008), who explores the effects of social status on
the likelihood of labeling and hospitalization of the mentally
ill. Disconfirming the “differential labeling hypothesis,” she
found that lower-status individuals are not more likely to be
hospitalized than high-status individuals (Thoits & Evenson
2008).
194
Grattet
contexts of enforcement, work by Cicourel,
Kitsuse, and Sudnow has stimulated a sizeable
research literature, so much so that this strand
of societal reaction theory might be more aptly
named “organizational reaction” perspective.
Richard McCleary’s (1977, 1992) study of
parole agents shows that they mostly overlook
the deviant behavior of parolees, only invoking an official sanction when the agent sees
some benefit to doing so in terms of enhancing the agent’s ability to control the parolee
or to satisfy an informal bureaucratic demand.
Focusing on how probation officers construct
accounts of the decisions they make, Drass and
Spencer (Drass & Spencer 1987, Spencer 1983)
found that officers blend the legalistic/social
control and casework/counseling approaches
and that the strategies they use in particular
cases emerge from the structure and culture
of the organization in which they are situated.
A key concept here is the “theory of office”
which is the working ideology of social control
agents.
Although accounts of decisions are separate
from the actual decisions they document, both
are products of the organizational typologies
shared by members of rate-producing agencies as part of their theory of office. These typologies themselves are influenced by factors
related to the structure of the rate-producing
agencies as well as factors related to the training backgrounds of social control agents. This
suggests that typologies may actually mediate
the influence of macrolevel variables on social
control decision-making and accounts of those
decisions. (Drass & Spencer 1987, p. 291)
Cavender & Knepper (1992, p. 398) found
similar processes in their study of juvenile
parole revocation decision making: “We see a
theory of office, its organizational context, and
accompanying accounts as integrated features
of the decision-making gestalt.” This work
makes clear that how social control agencies
operate requires explication of both the cognitive frameworks social control decision makers
use and the organizational constraints they face.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
Along these lines, another important development in research on social control organizations
comes from sentencing research on “court
communities.” This work is most associated
with Darrell Steffensmeier, Jeffrey Ulmer, and
their colleagues (Kramer & Ulmer 2002, Steffensmeier et al. 1998, Ulmer & Bradley 2006)
on the “focal concerns” of social control decision makers, which contends that sanctioning
decisions are made with respect to three general
criteria: estimations of the blameworthiness
of the deviant, assessments of the deviant’s
dangerousness and risk to participate in further
deviant behavior, and bureaucratic constraints.7
For example, Ulmer & Bradley (2006, p. 658)
found that differences in the “perceived group
threats and in practical political constraints
and incentives between court community
contexts—are key reasons behind the patterns
in jury trial penalties we have found among serious violent offenses.” Confirming Emerson’s
(1983) emphasis on caseload management as a
key factor in understanding social control decision making, Ulmer & Bradley also found evidence that bureaucratic constraints stemming
from caseload pressures affect sanctioning.
The notion that social control decisions are
shaped by officials’ constructions of deviants
has received quite a bit of attention. The basic
idea is that net of the actual deviant behavior
involved, individual offender attributes such as
age, race, and gender can shape social control
agents’ perceptions of offender threat and
culpability and thereby influence how those
agents wield their discretion. Differential
enforcement along these dimensions can result
from stereotypes, for example, that black
offenders pose inherently greater risks to reoffend, that women pose less of a risk than men,
or that younger offenders are more dangerous
than older offenders. A significant amount of
research has examined the effects of these status
characteristics on sanctioning (see Triplett
7
This work has roots in earlier work by Steffensmeier (1980)
and Albonetti (1991) on the situational and organizational
factors that influence sanctioning above and beyond case
characteristics and the offender’s prior offense history.
1993). Although the evidence for effects of age,
race, and gender is somewhat mixed (Daly &
Tonry 1997, Hagan & Bumiller 1983, Klein
et al. 1990, Steffensmeier & Demuth 2001,
Steffensmeier et al. 1998, Tittle & Curran
1988), recent work has identified race effects
on a variety of sanctioning decisions—with
offenders of color being treated more harshly
(Bontrager et al. 2005, Bridges & Steen 1998,
Demuth & Steffensmeier 2004, Kubrin &
Stewart 2006, Steen et al. 2005). Gender effects, specifically more harshness toward male
offenders, have also been consistently observed
in recent work (Daly & Bordt 1995, Demuth &
Steffensmeier 2004). The relationship between
age and sanctioning appears to be complex and
nonlinear, but in general, older offenders seem
to be treated more leniently than younger
offenders (Steffensmeier et al. 1998).
In addition, some offenders are understood
to be particularly risky or blameworthy because
of the nature of their past behavior or because
of other stereotypes related to their socio-legal
statuses. For example, Steen et al. (2005) examined the stigmatizing effect of being categorized
as a “dangerous drug offender” on sentencing
decisions. Lofland (1969) referred to these
classifications as “pivotal categories.” Pivotal
categories can operate directly on sanctioning
decisions—lowering or raising the harshness
of treatment—but they can also condition the
effects of other factors. Steen et al. (2005)
found that the effect of race was dependent
upon whether or not the offender was included
in the pivotal category of “dangerous drug
offender.” Whereas so-called dangerous drug
offenders were treated more harshly than other
offenders, black offenders who were not so
labeled were treated more harshly than similar
white offenders. This is consistent with Kramer
& Ulmer’s (2002) research on downward departures from state sentencing guidelines that
showed that “low-level” black offenders were
less likely to be provided with more lenient
sentences than “low-level” white offenders. Lin
et al. (2010) found that the pivotal categories
of being a “second striker” or a “registered sex
offender” in California increased the likelihood
www.annualreviews.org • Societal Reactions to Deviance
195
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
a parolee would have their parole revoked and
be returned to prison, holding constant the
seriousness and number of parole violations
the offender committed as well as other factors
associated with risk to reoffend.
Other work has pushed the emphasis on
the context of social control decision making
toward broader historical analyses of major
shifts in social control ideology and practices.
Simon’s (1993) study of the transformation
of parole in the contemporary era argues that
shifts in law, policy, and official conceptions of
parolee deviance have meant that how parole
agents do their work has been powerfully
shaped by the emergence and spread of actuarial principles within the criminal justice
system. Feeley & Simon (1992) put forward
the concept of a “new penology” consisting
of new discourses, such as the emphasis on
probability and risk minimization, new objectives, such as the prioritization of efficiency
and recidivism reduction as the ultimate goals
of punishment, and new techniques, such as
risk classification instruments, drug testing,
and surveillance technologies. They argue that
earlier paradigms of control focusing on rehabilitation, deterrence, or just deserts are being
replaced by a new penology that rejects rehabilitation and promotes the managerial goals of
cost effective minimization of aggregate risk.
Lynch (1998) has questioned the completeness of this transformation, finding evidence
that parole agents on the ground did not
embrace all of the innovations associated
with the new penology. She emphasizes local
organization autonomy as key to allowing
agents and supervisors to often ignore the new
policies and agendas formulated at the top
of the organizational chart. Instead, the parole agents she observed clung to the role
orientation of “the cop” and found support for
doing so within the local community, which
prioritized public safety over rehabilitation or
actuarial “waste management.”
Feeley & Simon’s (1992) new penology
fits alongside other work inspired by Michel
Foucault’s writings about governmentality,
which is also relevant to understanding how
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
196
Grattet
contemporary social control organizations
operate (Foucault et al. 1991). Among the key
insights of governmentality studies is that the
technologies and strategies employed by social
control institutions reflect much broader discourses about government and the moral order
of society. Moreover, those strategies and technologies, in a given historical period, are more
or less united in a common logic that stretches
across different social control settings (Rose
2000). In other words, “at particular historical
moments, programs often had a family resemblance in that they operated to a greater or lesser
extent with shared problematizations, or modes
of problem formation, and were formulated
within shared rationalities or styles of thinking”
(Rose et al. 2006, p. 88). These broader rationalities unite policies and practices across a wide
variety of social control settings. Simon’s (2007)
book Governing Through Crime powerfully
illustrates how public fears about managing and
minimizing the risks of criminality are reflected
in the governance of educational institutions,
the workplace, and urban and suburban spaces
(see also Donzelot 1979, Merry 2001).
An important implication of the governmentality perspective is that, despite its
attention to social control practices and
technologies, it decenters the societal reaction
perspective’s traditional focus on social control
organizations, specifically criminal justice
agencies. In moving beyond the concern about
how social control operates within official institutions, some have characterized the contemporary operation of social control as “postdisciplinary” or “government-at-a-distance” (Rose
2000); in other words, social control operations
in advanced liberal societies do not reside within
a given discipline, a recognized authority, or
a formal institution. Instead, social control is
increasingly “rhizomatic,” reliant on horizontal
exchanges between individuals empowered to
act on the basis of their own free will, rather
than the hierarchical systems of government.
[I]ndividuals cannot look solely to the public
police and the formal mechanisms of the legal
system: they must educate themselves with the
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
assistance of experts and must actively engage
in partnerships with expertise to maintain order and combat threats to individual and col-
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
lective security. (Rose 2000, p. 327)
This decenters social control organizations—the entry point of societal reaction research on social control—because it recasts
those organizations as mere channels for the
broader discursive frameworks and rationalities, sites where technologies and strategies are
put into practice. However, like Lynch’s challenge to the new penology thesis described
above, some scholars have qualified this theoretical imagery; and, also like Lynch, such challenges have come out of research that seeks
to discern the operation of governmentality
on the ground in ethnographic studies of local criminal justice agencies of the sort pioneered by societal reaction work of the 1960s
and 1970s. One study coined the term “governmentality gap” to capture the “interstices
between governmental rationalities and technologies and ‘the actual practices and discourses
that make up the field’” (McNeill et al. 2009,
p. 421).
To be fair, theorists of governmentality have
long recognized the gap, the “corruption in
practice” (Garland 1997, p. 199) or the “incoherence and volatility” of social control practices (O’Malley 1999), and called for more
situated analyses of how social control is manifest as an “assemblage of control” (Rose 2000).
Moreover, the focus of governmentality studies
is really on the broad historical shift in rationalities and technologies, which is a legitimate
subject for analysis in and of itself. Unsurprisingly, more locally situated analyses have been
neglected. And yet, this reveals an important
opportunity for the older societal reaction tradition, with its emphasis on local social control
agencies, the “theories of office” that produce
gaps and “corruption in practice,” as well as the
bureaucratic constraints that pattern discretion,
to contribute to the analysis of governmentality.
Combined, some of the key lessons of this
more recent work on social control organizations is that sanctioning and the activation
of the labeling process involves the translation of abstract social control ideologies to local situations, which, in turn, is a process that
is contingent upon local practical knowledge
and traditions, competing discourses and models available within the environment, and organizational and environmental factors and constraints. These conceptualizations continue to
highlight the importance of focusing on the operation of local social control organizations to
expose the gaps between theory and practice
and to suggest organizational and ideological
reasons for those gaps.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Despite declarations of its demise, inquiry into
societal reactions to deviance has continued in
various subfields within sociology. Those investigations have been pursued along the three
strands identified in earlier work and described
above. Recent scholarship sometimes explicitly
references the earlier tradition, such as work on
stigma and moral panics, but new concepts have
been added as well, such as cumulative disadvantage to describe the structural impediments
faced by labeled persons and focal concerns and
theory of office to characterize the interpretive
frameworks applied to deviants by social control agents. Often newer work, such as Pager’s
study of the differential effects of the negative
credential of incarceration for black and white
males, continues an important theme of societal reaction work and yet makes no reference
to labeling or stigma.
Moreover, the newer work reviewed here
goes beyond the older tradition, for example, by
using a much richer theoretical vocabulary for
describing the development of deviant labels.
Researchers now conceive of the development
of deviant labels as being part of the broader
process of the social construction of social
problems as well as being shaped by changes in
medical knowledge, rationalities of governance,
and the rise of new discourses of deviance
(e.g., the new penology). Those knowledges,
discourses, and rationalities—characterized
differently in different subfields—operate
www.annualreviews.org • Societal Reactions to Deviance
197
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
interinstitutionally, spreading across medicine,
mental health, and criminal justice and even
beyond the disciplines into the workplace,
neighborhood, and ultimately, the governance
of self.
Taking stock of this new wave of scholarship, one can identify three lines of analysis that
should provide a focus for future work. The first
is continued development of studies of the contingent nature of labeling across a wider variety
of social control contexts. The negative consequences of labeling are by no means deterministic or uniform, but are instead dependent
upon a handful of factors revealed in research
described above. Negative consequences of labeling can be contingent upon characteristics
of the individual, his or her immediate social
networks, and broader societal views of their
condition as well as upon the visibility of the
individual’s deviance to others. These conclusions have been drawn primarily from research
on medical illness, mental health, and crime.
Research must explore how these and potentially other factors modify the effects of labeling
of other forms of deviance beyond illness and
crime.
A second emerging area of theoretical development is the causes of gaps between social control discourse and practice. Like the work that
came before it, recent research on the operation
of social control organizations shows a consistent gap between theory and practice, as well
as incoherence and volatility in how broader
shifts in thinking about deviance are translated
into action by professionals and officials. As in
law and society studies, much research has been
content to identify gaps between law in books
and law in action or to document the purpose
served by a gap in a particular empirical setting.
Attention must shift to understanding why such
gaps exist and what accounts for variation in
the degree of disjuncture between theory and
action across settings. As yet, little theoretical
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
development seeks to identify the range of local,
organizational, and other factors that shape how
social control diverges in practice from theory
(however, see Grattet & Jenness 2005, Jenness
& Grattet 2005).
A third trajectory emerges from studies of
the diffusion of social control practices from deviants to nondeviants. Research reviewed here
has begun to show how techniques and practices developed in relation to deviants and have
diffused into other aspects of social life, governing nondeviant activities and persons, to regulate natural life processes with the full participation of subjects being regulated. These
same knowledges, discourses, and rationalities
are invoked by the labeled persons themselves
to account for, justify, or neutralize their deviance. In doing so, and as Lemert (1951) anticipated, labeling sometimes sets in motion identity transformation—the process of secondary
deviation, when the labeled person tries to adjust to a new role. However, how and when diffusion of social control strategies occur and how
new technologies aid the process remain largely
unexplored.
As should be clear from the newer research
reviewed above, as well as my summary of the
potential future trajectories of scholarship, lost
in the waning of the societal reaction perspective is a more general vocabulary for describing
processes and outcomes across a wide variety of
topical areas. The inexorable march of specialization in sociology has meant that fragments of
societal reaction perspective are now scattered
across isolated subfields and forgotten in others.
Missing is what, for a brief moment, the societal
reaction perspective provided: a language and a
set of concepts that gave coherence to a wide
variety of empirical investigations. Whether
such a project proceeds under the banner of
the societal reaction perspective or not, that
common theoretical language is what needs
resurrecting.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
198
Grattet
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thomas Beamish, Ming Cheng Lo, Laura Grindstaff, and Valerie Jenness provided feedback on
earlier drafts. Peggy Thoits assisted with the discussion of stigma of mental illness.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
LITERATURE CITED
Akers RL. 1968. Problems in the sociology of deviance: social definitions and behavior. Soc. Forces 46:455–65
Akers RL. 1972. Comment on Gove’s evaluation of societal reaction as an explanation of mental illness. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 37:487–88
Albonetti C. 1991. An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Soc. Probl. 38:247–66
Altheide DL. 2009. Moral panic: from sociological concept to public discourse. Crime Media Cult. 5:79–99
Becker HS. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. London: Free Press Glencoe. 179 pp.
Becker HS. 1973. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press. 215 pp. Rev. ed.
Ben-Yehuda N. 1985. Deviance and Moral Boundaries: Witchcraft and the Occult, Science Fiction, Deviance Sciences
and Scientists. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 270 pp.
Bernburg JG, Krohn MD. 2003. Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: the direct and indirect effects of
official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology 41:1287–318
Bernstein IN, Kelly WR, Doyle PA. 1977. Societal reaction to deviants: the case of criminal defendants. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 42:743–55
Best J. 1999. Random Violence: How We Talk About New Crimes and New Victims. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press.
242 pp.
Best J. 2004. Deviance: Career of a Concept. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 100 pp.
Betancourt TS, Agnew-Blais J, Gilman SE, Williams DR, Ellis BH. 2010. Past horrors, present struggles: the
role of stigma in the association between war experiences and psychosocial adjustment among former
child soldiers in Sierra Leone. Soc. Sci. Med. 70:17–26
Billings DB, Urban T. 1982. The socio-medical construction of transsexualism: an interpretation and critique.
Soc. Probl. 29:266–82
Bontrager S, Bales W, Chiricos T. 2005. Race, ethnicity, threat and the labeling of convicted felons. Criminology
43:589–622
Bordua D. 1967. Recent trends: deviant behavior and social control. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 369:149–63
Bridges GS, Steen S. 1998. Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:554–70
Burns R, Crawford C. 1999. School shootings, the media, and public fear: ingredients for a moral panic. Crime
Law Soc. Change 32:147–68
Cavender G, Knepper P. 1992. Strange interlude: an analysis of juvenile parole revocation decision making.
Soc. Probl. 39:387–99
Chambliss WJ. 1964. A sociological analysis of the law of vagrancy. Soc. Probl. 12:67–77
Chambliss WJ. 1979. On lawmaking. Br. J. Law Soc. 6:149–71
Chambliss WJ, Zatz MS. 1993. Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradictions. Bloomington:
Indiana Univ. Press. 446 pp.
Chiricos T, Barrick K, Bales W, Bontrager S. 2007. The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for
recidivism. Criminology 45:547–81
Cicourel AV. 1976. The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. London: Heinemann Educ. 345 pp.
Clair JA, Beatty JE, Maclean TL. 2005. Out of sight but not out of mind: managing invisible social identities
in the workplace. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30:78–95
Clear T. 2007. Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 280 pp.
Cohen S. 1972. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon & Kee.
224 pp.
Cohen S. 2002. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London/New York:
Routledge. 201 pp. 3rd ed.
Conrad P. 1975. Discovery of hyperkinesis: notes on medicalization of deviant behavior. Soc. Probl. 23:12–21
www.annualreviews.org • Societal Reactions to Deviance
199
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
Conrad P. 1979. Types of medical social control. Sociol. Health Ill. 1:1–11
Conrad P. 1992. Medicalization and social-control. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 18:209–32
Conrad P. 2007. The Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. 204 pp.
Conrad P, Schneider JW. 1980. Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
311 pp.
Crosnoe R, Frank K, Strassmann A. 2008. Gender, body size and social relations in American high schools.
Soc. Forces 86:1189–216
Daly K, Bordt R. 1995. Sex effects and sentencing: a review of the statistical literature. Justice Q. 12:143–77
Daly K, Tonry M. 1997. Gender, race, and sentencing. Crime Justice 22:201–52
Demuth S, Steffensmeier D. 2004. The impact of gender and race-ethnicity in the pretrial release process.
Soc. Probl. 51:222–42
Devers CE, Dewett T, Mishina Y, Belsito CA. 2009. A general theory of organizational stigma. Organ. Sci.
20:154–71
Dichiara A, Galliher JF. 1994. Dissonance and contradictions in the origins of marijuana decriminalization.
Law Soc. Rev. 28:41–77
Donzelot J. 1979. The Policing of Families. New York: Pantheon Books. 242 pp.
Drass KA, Spencer JW. 1987. Accounting for pre-sentencing recommendations: typologies and probation
officers’ theory of office. Soc. Probl. 34:277–93
Emerson RM. 1983. Holistic effects in social control decision-making. Law Soc. Rev. 17:425–55
Erikson KT. 1966. Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Wiley. 228 pp.
Feeley M, Simon J. 1992. The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications.
Criminology 30:449–74
Fine GA. 1993. The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic interactionism.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 19:61–87
Foster H, Hagan J. 2007. Incarceration and intergenerational social exclusion. Soc. Probl. 54:399–433
Foucault M, Burchell G, Gordon C, Miller P. 1991. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality with Two
Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 307 pp.
Frank DJ, Hardinge T, Wosick-Correa K. 2009. The global dimensions of rape-law reform: a cross-national
study of policy outcomes. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74:272–90
Galliher JF, Cross JR. 1983. Morals Legislation Without Morality: The Case of Nevada. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers Univ. Press. 163 pp.
Garland D. 1997. ‘Governmentality’ and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theor.
Criminol. 1:173–214
Garland D. 2008. On the concept of moral panic. Crime Media Cult. 4:9–30
Gibbs JP. 1966. Conceptions of deviant behavior: the old and the new. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 9:9–19
Goffman E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster. 147 pp.
Goode E. 2002. Does the death of the sociology of deviance claim make sense? Am. Sociol. 3:107–18
Goode E, Ben-Yehuda N. 1994. Moral panics: culture, politics, and social construction. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
20:149–71
Gouldner AW. 1968. Sociologist as partisan—sociology and welfare state. Am. Sociol. 3:103–16
Gove WR. 1970. Societal reaction as an explanation of mental illness: an evaluation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 35:873–84
Gove WR. 1972. Reply to Akers. Am. Sociol. Rev. 37:488–90
Grattet R, Jenness V. 2005. The reconstitution of law in local settings: agency discretion, ambiguity, and a
surplus of law in the policing of hate crime. Law Soc. Rev. 39:893–941
Grattet R, Jenness V, Curry TR. 1998. The homogenization and differentiation of hate crime law in the
United States, 1978 to 1995: innovation and diffusion in the criminalization of bigotry. Am. Sociol. Rev.
63:286–307
Green S, Davis C, Karshmer E, Marsh P, Straight B. 2005. Living stigma: the impact of labeling, stereotyping,
separation, status loss, and discrimination in the lives of individuals with disabilities and their families.
Sociol. Inq. 75:197–215
Gusfield JR. 1963. Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Urbana: Univ. Ill.
Press. 198 pp.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
200
Grattet
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
Gusfield JR. 1968. Legislating morals: symbolic process of designating deviance. Calif. Law Rev. 56:54–73
Gusfield JR. 1981. The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press. 263 pp.
Hagan J. 1980. The legislation of crime and delinquency: a review of theory, method, and research. Law Soc.
Rev. 14:603–28
Hagan J, Bumiller K. 1983. Making sense of sentencing: a review and critique of sentencing research. In
Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform, ed. A Blumstein, J Cohen, S Martin, pp. 1–54. Washington,
DC: Natl. Acad. Press
Hallgrimsdottir HK, Phillips R, Benoit C, Walby K. 2008. Sporting girls, streetwalkers, and inmates of
houses of ill repute: media narratives and the historical mutability of prostitution stigmas. Sociol. Perspect.
51:119–38
Hendershott AB. 2002. The Politics of Deviance. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books. 194 pp.
Herek GM. 2007. Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: theory and practice. J. Soc. Issues 63:905–25
Hinshaw SP, Stier A. 2008. Stigma as relation to mental disorders. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 4:367–93
Hollinger RC, Lanza-Kaduce L. 1988. The process of criminalization: the case of computer crime laws.
Criminology 26:101–26
Holstein JA, Miller G, eds. 2003. Challenges and Choices: Constructionist Perspectives on Social Problems.
Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 262 pp.
Jenkins P. 1992. Intimate Enemies: Moral Panics in Contemporary Great Britain. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
262 pp.
Jenkins P. 1998. Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. New Haven, CT: Yale
Univ. Press. 302 pp.
Jenness V. 2004. Explaining criminalization: from demography and status politics to globalization and modernization. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:147–71
Jenness V, Broad K. 1997. Hate Crimes: New Social Movements and the Politics of Violence. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter. 216 pp.
Jenness V, Grattet R. 1996. The criminalization of hate: a comparison of structural and polity influences on
the passage of ‘‘bias-crime’’ legislation in the United States. Sociol. Perspect. 39:129–54
Jenness V, Grattet R. 2001. Making Hate a Crime: From Social Movement to Law Enforcement. New York: Russell
Sage Found.
Jenness V, Grattet R. 2005. The law-in-between: the effects of organizational perviousness on the policing of
hate crime. Soc. Probl. 52:337–59
King D. 1987. Social constructionism and medical knowledge: the case of transsexualism. Sociol. Health Ill.
9:351–77
Kitsuse JI. 1962. Societal reaction to deviant behavior: problems of theory and method. Soc. Probl. 9:247–56
Kitsuse JI, Cicourel AV. 1963. A note on the uses of official statistics. Soc. Probl. 11:131–39
Klein S, Petersilia J, Turner S. 1990. Race and imprisonment decisions in California. Science 247:812
Kramer JH, Ulmer JT. 2002. Downward departures for serious violent offenders: local court “corrections” to
Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines. Criminology 40:897–932
Kubrin CE, Stewart EA. 2006. Predicting who reoffends: the neglected role of neighborhood context in
recidivism studies. Criminology 44:165–97
Lemert EM. 1951. Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic Behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill. 459 pp.
Lemert EM. 1970. Social Action & Legal Change: Revolution within the Juvenile Court. Chicago: Aldine. 248 pp.
Lemert EM. 1974. Beyond Mead: the societal reaction to deviance. Soc. Probl. 21:457–68
Lemert EM. 1981. Issues in the study of deviance. Sociol. Q. 22:285–305
Levi M. 2009. Suite revenge? Br. J. Criminol. 49:48–67
Liazos A. 1972. The poverty of the sociology of deviance: nuts, sluts, and preverts. Soc. Probl. 20:103–20
Lin J, Grattet R, Petersilia J. 2010. ‘Back-end sentencing’ and reimprisonment: individual, organizational, and
community predictors of parole sanctioning decisions. Criminology 48:759–95
Link BG. 1987. Understanding labeling effects in the area of mental disorders: an assessment of the effects of
expectations of rejection. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52:96–112
www.annualreviews.org • Societal Reactions to Deviance
201
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
Link BG, Cullen FT, Frank J, Wozniak JF. 1988. The social rejection of former mental patients: understanding
why labels matter. Am. J. Sociol. 92:1461–500
Link BG, Cullen FT, Struening E, Shrout PE, Dohrenwend BP. 1989. A modified labeling theory approach
to mental disorders: an empirical assessment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 54:400–23
Link BG, Phelan JC. 2001. Conceptualizing stigma. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:363–85
Lofland J. 1969. Deviance and Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 330 pp.
Lynch M. 1998. Waste managers? The new penology, crime fighting, and parole agent identity. Law Soc. Rev.
32:839–70
Major B, O’Brien LT. 2005. The social psychology of stigma. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:393–421
Manning PK. 1973. On deviance. Contemp. Sociol. 2:123–28
Manza J, Uggen C. 2006. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press. 359 pp.
Marx GT. 1981. Ironies of social control: authorities as contributors to deviance through escalation, nonenforcement, and covert facilitation. Soc. Probl. 28:221–46
Matsueda RL. 1992. Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. Am. J. Sociol. 97:1577–611
Matza D. 1969. Becoming Deviant. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 203 pp.
McCleary R. 1977. How parole officers use records. Soc. Probl. 24:576–89
McCleary R. 1992. Dangerous Men: The Sociology of Parole. New York: Harrow & Heston. 149 pp.
McNeill F, Burns N, Halliday S, Hutton N, Tata C. 2009. Risk, responsibility and reconfiguration: penal
adaptation and misadaptation. Punishm. Soc. 11:419–42
McRobbie A, Thorton SL. 1995. Rethinking ‘moral panic’ for multi-mediated social worlds. Br. J. Sociol.
46:559–74
Mead GH. 1918. The psychology of punitive justice. Am. J. Sociol. 23:577–602
Merry SE. 2001. Spatial governmentality and the new urban social order: controlling gender violence through
law. Am. Anthropol. 103:16–29
Miller G, Holstein JA. 1993. Constructionist Controversies: Issues in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter. 221 pp.
Nahm S. 2009. Between stigma and demand. Hum. Organ. 68:406–14
O’Malley P. 1999. Volatile and contradictory punishment. Theor. Criminol. 3:175–96
Pager D. 2007. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in the Era of Mass Incarceration. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press. 248 pp.
Paternoster R, Iovanni L. 1989. The labeling perspective and delinquency: an elaboration of the theory and
an assessment of the evidence. Justice Q. 6:359–94
Pescosolido BA, Martin JK. 2007. Stigma and the sociological enterprise. In Mental Health, Social Mirror, ed.
WR Avison, JD McLeod, BA Pescosolido, pp. 307–28. New York: Springer
Pescosolido BA, Martin JK, Lang A, Olafsdottir S. 2008. Rethinking theoretical approaches to stigma: a
Framework Integrating Normative Influences on Stigma (FINIS). Soc. Sci. Med. 67:431–40
Petersilia J. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 320
pp.
Petrunik M. 1980. The rise and fall of “labelling theory”: the construction and destruction of a sociological
strawman. Can. J. Sociol. 5:213–33
Pfohl SJ. 1977. The “discovery” of child abuse. Soc. Probl. 24:310–23
Pfohl SJ. 1994. Images of Deviance and Social Control: A Sociological History. New York: McGraw-Hill. 528 pp.
Phelan JC, Link BG, Dovidio JF. 2008. Stigma and prejudice: one animal or two? Soc. Sci. Med. 67:358–67
Plummer K. 2001. Labelling theory. In Encyclopedia of Criminology and Deviant Behavior, ed. C Bryant, pp. 191–
94. New York: Routledge
Quinn DM, Chaudoir SR. 2009. Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: the impact of anticipated
stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health. J. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 97:634–51
Richardson JT, Best J, Bromley DG. 1991. The Satanism Scare. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 320 pp.
Rose N. 2000. Government and control. Br. J. Criminol. 40:321–39
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
202
Grattet
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
Rose N, O’Malley P, Valverde M. 2006. Governmentality. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2:83–104
Rosecrance J. 1985. Compulsive gambling and the medicalization of deviance. Soc. Probl. 32:275–84
Rosenfield S. 1997. Labeling mental illness: the effects of received services and perceived stigma on life
satisfaction. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62:660–72
Rossol J. 2003. The medicalization of deviance as an interactive achievement: the construction of compulsive
gambling. Symb. Interact. 24:315–41
Sampson RJ, Laub JH. 1997. A life course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency.
In Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, ed. TP Thornberry, pp. 133–61. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction
Scambler G. 2009. Health-related stigma. Sociol. Health Ill. 31:441–55
Scheff TJ. 1974. The labelling theory of mental illness. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39:444–52
Scheff TJ. 1999 [1966]. Being Mentally Ill: A Sociological Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine. 3rd ed.
Schneider JW. 1978. Deviant drinking as disease: alcoholism as a social accomplishment. Soc. Probl. 25:361–72
Schneider JW. 1985. Social problems theory: the constructionist view. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 11:209–29
Schur EM. 1969. Reactions to deviance: a critical assessment. Am. J. Sociol. 75:309–22
Scott WJ. 1990. PTSD in DSM-III—a case in the politics of diagnosis and disease. Soc. Probl. 37:294–310
Simon J. 1993. Poor Discipline: Parole and the Social Control of the Underclass, 1890–1990. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press. 286 pp.
Simon J. 2007. Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created
a Culture of Fear. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 330 pp.
Spector M, Kitsuse JI. 1977. Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings. 184 pp.
Spencer JW. 1983. Accounts, attitudes, and solutions: probation officer–defendant negotiations of subjective
orientations. Soc. Probl. 30:570–81
Starr P. 1982. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic Books. 514 pp.
Steen S, Engen RL, Gainey RR. 2005. Images of danger and culpability: racial stereotyping, case processing,
and criminal sentencing. Criminology 43:435–68
Steffensmeier D. 1980. Assessing the impact of the women’s movement on sex-based differences in the handling
of adult criminal defendants. Crime Delinq. 26:344–57
Steffensmeier D, Demuth S. 2001. Ethnicity and judges’ sentencing decisions: Hispanic-black-white comparisons. Criminology 39:145–78
Steffensmeier D, Ulmer J, Kramer J. 1998. The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing:
the punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36:763–97
Sudnow D. 1965. Normal crimes: sociological features of the penal-code in a public defender office. Soc. Probl.
12:255–76
Sumner C. 1994. The Sociology of Deviance: An Obituary. New York: Continuum. 340 pp.
Sykes G, Matza D. 1957. Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22:664–70
Tannenbaum F. 1938. Crime and the Community. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Thoits PA. 1985. Self-labeling processes in mental illness: the role of emotional deviance. Am. J. Sociol.
91:221–49
Thoits PA. 2005. Differential labeling of mental illness by social status: a new look at an old problem. J. Health
Soc. Behav. 46:102–19
Thoits PA. 2011a. Perceived social support and the voluntary, mixed, or pressured use of mental health services.
Soc. Mental Health 1:4–19
Thoits PA. 2011b. Resisting the stigma of mental illness. Soc. Psychol. Q. 74:6–28
Thoits PA, Evenson RJ. 2008. Differential labeling of mental illness by social status revisited: Patterns before
and after the rise of managed care. Sociol. Forum 23:28–52
Tierney KJ. 1982. The battered women movement and the creation of the wife beating problem. Soc. Probl.
29:207–20
Tittle CR. 1975a. Deterrents or labeling? Soc. Forces 53:399–410
Tittle CR. 1975b. Labelling and crime: an empirical evaluation. In The Labelling of Deviance: Evaluating a
Perspective, ed. WR Gove, pp. 157–79. New York: Wiley
Tittle CR, Curran DA. 1988. Contingencies for dispositional disparities in juvenile justice. Soc. Forces 67:23–58
www.annualreviews.org • Societal Reactions to Deviance
203
SO37CH09-Grattet
ARI
8 June 2011
20:50
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
Triplett R. 1993. The conflict perspective, symbolic interactionism, and the status characteristics hypothesis.
Justice Q. 10:541–58
Uggen C. 2000. Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: a duration model of age, employment,
and recidivism. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65:529–46
Ulmer JT, Bradley MS. 2006. Variation in trial penalties among serious violent offenses. Criminology 44:631–70
Victor JS. 1998. Moral panics and the social construction of deviant behavior: a theory and application to
ritual child abuse. Sociol. Perspect. 41:541–65
Western B. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Found. 247 pp.
Wright ER, Wright DE, Perry BL, Foote-Ardah CE. 2007. Stigma and the sexual isolation of people with
serious mental illness. Soc. Probl. 54:78–98
Young J. 2009. Moral panic. Br. J. Criminol. 49:4–16
Zatz MS. 1987. Chicano youth gangs and crime: the creation of a moral panic. Contemp. Crises 11:129–58
204
Grattet
SO37-Frontmatter
ARI
11 June 2011
11:38
Annual Review
of Sociology
Volume 37, 2011
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
Contents
Prefatory Chapters
Reflections on a Sociological Career that Integrates Social Science
with Social Policy
William Julius Wilson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Emotional Life on the Market Frontier
Arlie Hochschild p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
Theory and Methods
Foucault and Sociology
Michael Power p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p35
How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly
Growing Literature
Mario Luis Small p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57
Social Theory and Public Opinion
Andrew J. Perrin and Katherine McFarland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87
The Sociology of Storytelling
Francesca Polletta, Pang Ching Bobby Chen, Beth Gharrity Gardner,
and Alice Motes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 109
Statistical Models for Social Networks
Tom A.B. Snijders p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 131
The Neo-Marxist Legacy in American Sociology
Jeff Manza and Michael A. McCarthy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 155
Social Processes
Societal Reactions to Deviance
Ryken Grattet p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 185
v
SO37-Frontmatter
ARI
11 June 2011
11:38
Formal Organizations
U.S. Health-Care Organizations: Complexity, Turbulence,
and Multilevel Change
Mary L. Fennell and Crystal M. Adams p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 205
Political and Economic Sociology
Political Economy of the Environment
Thomas K. Rudel, J. Timmons Roberts, and JoAnn Carmin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221
The Sociology of Finance
Bruce G. Carruthers and Jeong-Chul Kim p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 239
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
Political Repression: Iron Fists, Velvet Gloves, and Diffuse Control
Jennifer Earl p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 261
Emotions and Social Movements: Twenty Years of Theory
and Research
James M. Jasper p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
Employment Stability in the U.S. Labor Market:
Rhetoric versus Reality
Matissa Hollister p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 305
The Contemporary American Conservative Movement
Neil Gross, Thomas Medvetz, and Rupert Russell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 325
Differentiation and Stratification
A World of Difference: International Trends in Women’s
Economic Status
Maria Charles p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355
The Evolution of the New Black Middle Class
Bart Landry and Kris Marsh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 373
The Integration Imperative: The Children of Low-Status Immigrants
in the Schools of Wealthy Societies
Richard Alba, Jennifer Sloan, and Jessica Sperling p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 395
Gender in the Middle East: Islam, State, Agency
Mounira M. Charrad p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 417
Individual and Society
Research on Adolescence in the Twenty-First Century
Robert Crosnoe and Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 439
vi
Contents
SO37-Frontmatter
ARI
11 June 2011
11:38
Diversity, Social Capital, and Cohesion
Alejandro Portes and Erik Vickstrom p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461
Transition to Adulthood in Europe
Marlis C. Buchmann and Irene Kriesi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 481
The Sociology of Suicide
Matt Wray, Cynthia Colen, and Bernice Pescosolido p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 505
Demography
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:185-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Davis on 08/09/11. For personal use only.
What We Know About Unauthorized Migration
Katharine M. Donato and Amada Armenta p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 529
Relations Between the Generations in Immigrant Families
Nancy Foner and Joanna Dreby p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 545
Urban and Rural Community Sociology
Rural America in an Urban Society: Changing Spatial
and Social Boundaries
Daniel T. Lichter and David L. Brown p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 565
Policy
Family Changes and Public Policies in Latin America [Translation]
Brı́gida Garcı́a and Orlandina de Oliveira p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 593
Cambios Familiares y Polı́ticas Públicas en América Latina [Original,
available online at http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/
10.1146/annurev-soc-033111-130034]
Brı́gida Garcı́a and Orlandina de Oliveira p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 613
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 28–37 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 635
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 28–37 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 639
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found at
http://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents
vii