Lecture Notes: Labeling & Social Disorganization Theories

Because it does not appear I will be able to cover all of the remaining theories tomorrow, I am going to post my remaining notes on labeling theory and also what I planned to say about social disorganization theory. Since I am not going over this material in class, you won't have an opportunity to comment or raise questions in class. So, after you read over these notes, please don't hesitate to email me any questions or comments or raise qusestions in class, especially during the review session before the midterm exam which is coming up in roughly two weeks. Also, you should consider this material as you compose your first essay, a description of which I will hand out tomorrow (Thurs., 10/7).

LABELING THEORY: as you recall, we did get into this a bit. I noted the relevance of the symbolic interactionist view of the development of self ("looking-glass self" notion)to this theory, then I quoted from one of the leading labeling theorists, Howard Becker, from his book entitled, "The Outsiders."

Becker said: "One of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behavior is likely to be the experience of being caught and publicly labeled as a deviant. Whether a person takes this step or not depends not so much on what he does as on what other people do...being caught and branded as a deviant has important consequences for one's further social participation and self-image."

2. So, society imposing labels such as criminal, dope addict, crazy (as in Scheff's "Being Mentally Ill") tends to foster such a self-concept and behavior in us.

3. Labeling theorists would also emphasize that this theory is designed to explain SECONDARY deviance, not PRIMARY deviance (or the initial act for which one is publicly labeled). And herein lies one of the greatest weaknesses of the theory.

D. Prof. Akers, among many others, has been a long-time critic of labeling theory. He objected to the notion that we disregard the actual behavior of the deviant (in favor of focusing on society's reaction to it), and he also noted that even relatively powerless people are often able to resist the application of the label.

1. It is the factors that led to the initial act of deviance (which labeling theorists admittedly ignore) that may be the most important in explaining the perpetuation of the deviant behavior. As Prof. Akers comments in this regard:
"People are labeled as delinquent, criminal, homosexual, mentally ill, drug addicts, child molestors, and so on largely on the basis of overt acts they have committed. Therefore, the deviant behavior itself is prior to and forms the basis for the stigmatizing label. THE BEHAVIOR CREATES THE LABEL MORE THAN THE LABEL CREATES THE BEHAVIOR; AND SUBSEQUENT DEVIANT BEHAVIOR CONTINUES THE LABEL MORE THAN THE LABEL CONTINUES THE BEHAVIOR."

a.) Indeed, research appears to show that those who have committed primary deviance and have NOT been detected (and labeled) are just as likely as labeled offenders to develop deviant careers. To which Akers also adds: "The preponderance of research finds no or very weak evidence of labeling effects."

E. A later variation on the labeling thesis, John Braithwaite's, "Crime, Shame, and Integration" (1989), suggested the possibility of a positive role for labeling. He distinguished between "DISINTEGRATIVE SHAMING" (negative effect of labeling which the theory stresses) and "REINTEGRATIVE SHAMING" (positive effect).

1. "Reintegrative shaming" is where shaming someone is designed to create genuine remorse and bring the person back into the community (rather than ostracize him). Examples: restorative justice (apologies to victims or restitution, paying back), even drug courts where non-violent drug offenders have to appear before a judge periodically and show they are cleaning themselves up. A more notable recent example would be South Africa's "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" of the mid 1990s where former members of the apartheid regime who committed atrocities were allowed to confess their crimes and ask forgiveness from the victims, rather than simply being prosecuted and sent away to prison.

F. Back in the 1970s the labeling thesis did have some impact on criminal justice policy, inspiring so-called "juvenile diversion" programs -- avoid stigmatizing juvenile offenders and thereby locking them into a life of crime (according to the theory at least). Unfortunately, studies of such diversion programs have not demonstrated much effectiveness in stopping juveniles from continuing to commit crimes. (Nonetheless, I believe avoiding the criminal justice system (prison especially) when possible makes sense, such as in the case of drug courts. Most nonviolent drug offenders and abusers need help more than punishment and the stigma attached to it.)

G. Labeling theory may have been a product of its time -- it became popular in the 1960s to criticize the criminal justice system, to see it as part of the problem (which I believe was important to recognize). But by the late 1970s it was beginning to be rejected -- more conservative mood took hold in the country.

H. Despite the strong criticism , Prof. Akers, among others, does see some promise in Braithwaite's revision. Akers fairly (and very broadly) identifies the principal strength and weakness of labeling theory -- "The principal strength of labeling theory is that it calls attention to the unintended consequences of social control. Its principal weakness is that it essentially ignores primary deviance and seriously underestimates the influence that other variables have on behavior in the first place and continue to have on its future occurrence."


SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY

A. This theory originated at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and it is closely associated with a broader theoretical perspective known as URBAN ECOLOGY, that Chicago School sociologists developed around the same time. They are closely interrelated.

1. The urban ecologists developed various models to describe the city, its growth and development. They identified certain "natural areas" or zones, some of which had distinctly higher rates of criminal behavior. Why?

2. The social disorganization theorists contended that these high crime areas were characterized by a variety of indicators of social disorganization. For example, an especially crime-prone area was the so-called "zone of transition" -- an area near the commercial core which was changing from residential to commercial. Characterized by physical decay, poor housing, incomplete and broken families, high rates of illegitimate births and an unstable, transient, heterogeneous population -- all regarded as indicators of "social disorganization."

a.) Other characteristics identified in later versions of the theory (Sampson and Groves, 1989): lack of informal friendship networks, low participation in organizations, etc.

3. Basically, you have normal people trying to cope with these abnormal conditions, and in doing so tend to get involved in crime.

4. This is the first trutly MACRO theory we've covered, placing the blame on such social conditions and focusing on rates.

B. They also contended that rapid industrialization and urbanization caused this social disorganization which, in turn, undermined social control exercised through traditional social order and values.

C. Certainly, things have changed in our cities and inner city areas. If anything, conditions have deteriorated even further in our inner cities especially and crime rates are higher (even if they have declined somewhat in recent years). This is brought out in books such as "The Truly Disadvantaged" (1989). Yet, there is some basis to question this theory. As Prof. Akers observes --

"To what degree the realtionship between inner-city residents and crime is the result of social disorganization remains uncertain...."

"Often the research does not carefully measure social disorganization...."

"The very fact that crime and deviance are high within an area is itself sometimes used, tautologically, as an empirical indicator that the area is socially disorganized...."

"Furthermore, even in those areas characterized as the msot disorganized, only a minority of youths and a smaller minority of adults are involved in crime."

1. C. Wright Mills, a prominent American sociologist, raised the problem of potential bias in an essay entitled, "The Ideology of Social Pathologists." He suggested that these social disorganization theorists had a strong anti-urban bias because of their small-town, religious upbringing which they assumed to be more in line with social order.

D. Despite the apparent bias, among the other problems noted, I believe the theory makes some sense and it suggests the need to address poor social conditions in order to address the crime problem -- conditions such as you will read about in "Gang Leader for a Day."
______________________

That's it for now. Please incorporate the above in your notes. See you tomorrow.