Week 11
Labeling and Reaction
Theories
Tannenbaum, Becker, Lemert
and Braithwaite
Social Reaction Theories



Symbolic interactionism – social
interactions by which a person
becomes deviant
Who applies the label to whom?
What determines when the label will
be assigned?
Tannenbaum

Self Fulfilling Prophecy


Tagging, Defining, Identifying,
Segregating, Describing, Emphasizing,
Making conscious, Suggesting,
Stimulating – evoking the very traits that
are complained of
Educational Process


Tagging
Dramatization of evil
Becker


Deviance is created by society
Social groups create deviance by
making the rules whose infraction
constitutes deviance


Moral entrepreneurs
Status degradation ceremonies
Becker (cont’d)

Official reactions to crime increase the
likelihood and seriousness of future
crime in 4 ways:




Master status
Criminal associations
Limits opportunities
Self-fulfilling prophecy
Lemert

Everyone is involved in behavior that
could be labeled.

Two types of deviance:



Primary Deviance
Secondary Deviance
Process
Lemert (cont’d)

Primary Deviance




Behavior that is excused by society
Has only marginal implications for the
status of the person concerned
Deviations have bigger impacts when
they inspire societal reaction
People get stigmatized, punished,
controlled and segregated
Lemert (cont’d)

Secondary Deviance




Now they are defined differently
Behavior can no longer be rationalized
Their life and identity are organized
around the facts of deviance
Behavior now falls into a special class of
socially defined responses
Lemert (cont’d)



One deviant act isn’t enough to be
labeled…but…
Once identified as deviant, it is difficult
to change
Reciprocal relationship between the
deviation of the individual and the
societal reaction
Lemert (cont’d)

Process:



Primary deviation Social penalties  Further
primary deviation  stronger penalties and
rejections 
Further deviation  Community stigmatizes
the deviant  deviant conduct is strengthened
as a reaction to the penalties 
Ultimate acceptance of deviant social status
and efforts at adjustment on the basis of the
associated role
Braithwaite
Crime, Shame and Reintegration


What is shaming?
Labeling offenders makes them worse,
so what should we do instead?
Braithwaite (cont’d)

Crime is higher when shaming is
stigmatizing

Crime is lower when shaming is reintegrative

Shaming is necessary for social control

Shaming is most effective when societies
are communitarian
Braithwaite (cont’d)

Shaming works to specifically deter the
shamed offender but it also works
generally, to deter others who wish to
avoid shame and who participate in or
become aware of the incident of
shaming
Braithwaite (cont’d)






Interdependency
Communitarianism
Shaming
Reintegrative Shaming
Stigmatization
Criminal Subcultures
Braithwaite (cont’d)
Macro Level vs Micro Level



Shaming doesn’t have to damaging
The victim should receive a public
apology
In a perfect world, offenders are
forgiven by the victims
Braithwaite (cont’d)

Why it works for CRIME PREVENTION